15 Questions from a Feminist

Recently I was contacted by a feminist who asked me 15 questions. I rarely do so much typing without offering the end result for everyone else to see and criticise so here are my answers:

 

1.      What is feminism to you? Is its position defensive or offensive? Do you think one could be sympathetic to its theories?

To me, feminism is the enemy. The existence of the men’s rights movement is owed directly to feminism and its influences on society. No feminism, then no MRA’s (Men’s Rights Activists). This is not to say that the movement has not achieve some good, but like most victim movements its inevitable end is depravity, and I’m sure MRAism will be the same which is why I am reticent to associate myself with any “ism” without due diligence. I am more anti-feminist than I am an MRA.

Feminisms position is primarily offensive, it is about imposing a political view on society. Even if I were to agree with the gender goals of feminism, I, as a Libertarian, would surely despise its totalitarian leanings. Most feminists are leftists, they have a plan for how things should be.

2.      Because you believe in equal opportunity as opposed to material equality, do you think that little girls and teenage girls really have equal opportunity? Or are young boys disadvantaged?

What I have always said is that females have no less opportunity than males in our western societies. However, there are many areas where they have more opportunity/rights. See my video “men are more oppressed than women” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWIfMjzBII) for examples of this. Boys are certainly disadvantaged when compared to women but I don’t want to come off as a whiner here. I don’t go around thinking “man, I’m so oppressed”. It doesn’t happen. I am a person who is opinionated and takes a visceral dislike to feminism and the ideas and attacks on men it represents.

3.      Does patriarchy exist? Doesn’t the fact that men have more power, prestige, and influence in America confirm that patriarchy exists? What are your views on hegemony?

Yes. As a societal system in many countries around the world, it exists. Does it exist in the west? No. Words have meanings. If we look at the definition of patriarchy:

“a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.”

Males must have the ruling position by design for it to be patriarchy. I’ve had a feminist make the argument to me before that since most politicians in the UK are male then it’s patriarchal, but this is ridiculous of course, they’re there because they were elected, not because of their genitalia. If we were to have more women as politicians in a year’s time then would we live in a matriarchal society? No. It was another example of sloppy thinking by a person who desperately wanted to be the victim.

4.      Considering about 60% of women in America self-identify as feminists, do you really think that feminism is all about the vilification/ emasculation/ castration of men? Aren’t they more subtle and nuanced than “wanting to blame you for everything”?

You are simplifying what I believe feminism to be. Hatred of men may be a common trait in feminists but it is not what feminism is about or what attracts women to feminism. I’ve not heard this 60% figure but it wouldn’t surprise me. Many people don’t know anything about feminism and have bought into the line that is stands for equal rights and all things good. The appeal to popularity isn’t a good argument. People can buy into crap and have done so many times throughout history.

5.      What would have to change before men and women achieved true equality?

Societal: We would have to adopt the opportunity view of equality and mean it; we would have to get over this instinct of sniggering when “men’s rights” are mentioned and realise that women have no less opportunity than men do and now men and boys are suffering in many regards. We also need to drop chivalry and the need to protect women using the law. If we are going to have equal opportunities then we need to get over this primitive protectionist mentality.

Concrete examples: No different prison punishments for males vs. females. Shared custody as a default. No quotas (AKA positive discrimination). Equal retirement ages. No wage coercion. Equal opportunity for protection for male victims of DV. Plus some..

Also, more women than men in the workplace, politics or university is not an instance of oppression against men if they got there by their own choice on an equal playing field. If they got there by bringing men down with the coercive force of the state, then that is what I have a problem with.

6.      How do men in today’s society feel about women in general?

As a misanthrope, I cannot tell you what “men” think. Many who I’ve talked to are as fed up as I am about many aspects of modern feminism.

7.      Is there a difference between women and women’s roles in England and women’s roles in America? I’ve heard that women from the UK are more independent, and we are 93% religious.

Whatever differences there are will be small. I think that the two societies are largely similar and thus will be the gender roles.

8.      (Do you still refer to us as “the colonies”?)

Nope.

9.      Aren’t some (some) men’s issues irrelevant to gender discrimination? For instance, I was watching John Stuart, which featured some air time about a certain men’s rights group in Canada. Their leader voiced concern that “when a football player gets kicked off a football team, none of the cheerleaders would think to still cheer for him, in class, at school… “ and that “men don’t have a place to organize and be guys anymore”. I couldn’t believe it. He’s angry that girls don’t cheer for boys MORE than they already do? And what are bars, poker nights, gentlemen’s clubs, basements, auto mechanic shops, sports stadiums, and the US Senate for? Obviously men’s rights aren’t particularly concerned about these things, but what about others? Men’s circumcision, for instance? Or the fact that more men are dropping out of school? Or the prevalence of suicide, or the exemption of women in combat? None of these issues have anything to do with feminism or oppression, and yet they’re treated as such.

That guy was Warren Farrell, he is a luminary of the men’s rights movement and he has a lot of sensible things to say. I would take what you see on the John Stuart comedy hour with a pinch of salt, they are not above cheap editing and misrepresentation.

Some problems are an indirect consequence of feminism. Girls rise and boys fall in the wake of a massive political and social movement known as feminism which is dedicated to benefiting women and girls. Either girls have reached their natural superior status and boys have fallen for some other reason, or the social engineering over the past decades has had a bad effect, or some other reason. MRA’s and anti-feminists pick the middle one.

10.     Don’t most men feel superior to women on some level?

On some level maybe. Like physically. However, I don’t think men stand around feeling superior about this, they understand that men are men and women are women, and both have their good and bad qualities.

11.     Can men and women treat each other with mutual respect without pandering to the conventions of chivalry and femininity?

Mutual respect is easier without the knee-jerk manbashing that I’ve encountered from numerous young women I have lived with and worked with over the years. I’ve seen nothing like this on a similar level from the men I’ve known. It’s not 50/50. Female attitudes have been influenced by the societal zeitgeist over the years and this has been driven, in turn, by feminism. The gender war has been a one-sided war so far, we have a problem with manbashing media more than the other way around. Women need to let go of their resentments if relations are to become better.

12.     Why do you accuse women of ‘destroying the family’? Wasn’t the 1950s family scene degrading to women? Isn’t it good that women are putting their careers first?

This one is bemusing. Could you point out where I said this?

13.     How are little boys and girls socialized, and how does this affect their perceptions of gender?

One of the greatest socialising factors in our society is feminism. Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion” refers to the actions of feminism as “consciousness raising”. He states:

“It was the feminists who raised my consciousness of the power of consciousness-raising.”

...

“Man, mankind, the rights of man, all men are created equal, one man one vote - English too often seems to exclude women. When I was young, it never occurred to me that women might feel slighted by a phrase like "the future of man". During the intervening decades, we have all had our consciousness raised. Even those who still use "man" instead of "human" do so with an air of self-conscious apology - or truculence, taking a stand for traditional language, even deliberately to rile feminists.”

[http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=%22it+was+the+feminists+who+raised+my+consciousness+of+the%22&source=bl&ots=1ghH-2IhyR&sig=AESfS975FZ1wnnF0afu_IHNToOQ&hl=en&ei=d8NvS8TUBof8tAOWp-2xDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22it%20was%20the%20feminists%20who%20raised%20my%20consciousness%20of%20the%22&f=false]

I feel this when I use the generic “he”. We have indeed been affected by feminist in our western societies, they have formed our language and laws. I can tell you how it affected one little boy – me. I was hurt by the feminist slogans about fish and bicycles. I felt the manbashing on TV. Feminism has had free reign – there is no normative opposition to their views until the one that is growing now.

14.     Wouldn’t implementing a ‘men’s studies’ department be redundant, due to the fact that every academic subject extols the achievements, conquests, and intellectual breakthroughs of men in history, art, science, etc.?

I do not think there should be men’s studies departments. My reaction to feminism is not to instigate the same policies but with the sex reversed to males instead of females.

However, I don’t agree with your representation of many fields to extol the achievements of men. They extol the achievements of great figures in history, some of these are women but the vast majority are men because of the nature of gender roles in the past. Fair or not, these men are extolled not for being men, but for being the great figures of history.

Also, extolling the achievements of men would not be the aim of a men’s studies course. The course would be a study of the male mind and role in society. To the historical courses take this approach to understanding men?

15.     Is domestic violence really 50/50 in severity, domination, long-term effects, etc.?

I don’t know about 50/50, it probably doesn’t end up that way but I do think that DV against me is played down in our society. Whether it is 50/50 or not, men deserve the opportunity of protection that is being afforded women if they are suffering from DV.

Posted on: Monday, February 08, 2010 8:45 AM
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/9/2010 5:54 AM
    Gravatar
    Your answers were edifying, however, I’m not sure I mentioned anything about being a feminist. I don’t have enough information on the subject right now. I didn’t mean to say you thought feminists ‘destroyed the family’, but I do hear that intoned often by MRAs.

    Also, I’m very sorry that various forms of male bashing in the media that have hurt you in the past. But, my take on it is that some commercials, TV shows (like Family Guy) are written, produced, and edited by men, and their audience is primarily men. The Superbowl commercials, for instance, could be construed as sexist. Unfortunately some advertising companies have caught on to the fact that deliberately impugning one’s manhood is a good way to sell certain men things: Humvees, deodorant, etc.

    Generally, I try not to have a position I can’t defend. However, I’m faced with two options. Either cede that feminism is pointless, etc., or make an argument for the necessity of feminism by listing the various instances for which feminism is, I think, indispensible. I can do the latter very easily, but when I do, I’m invariably accused of whining, which puts a stopgap on conversation. So, people tell me to make the case for inequality, and when I do, I get accused of having a victim complex. What’s a well intentioned girl to do? It would be very simple to go down a list of activities/ situations that men and women face in life and identify practically a spate of inequities.

    This is how I, personally, measure inequality: I take any one of these situations and estimate the potential risk of being a female victim of male perpetrators, and then estimate the potential risk of being a male victim of female perpetrators, then subtract the latter from the former. I think we’d agree that women face considerable more danger, or the threat of danger.

    Walking alone day or night down a street
    Going to a party
    Going to a nightclub
    Riding the bus
    Taking a road trip
    Traveling abroad
    Waiting at a bus stop
    Walking to one’s car (evening, night)
    Jogging
    Going to an acquaintance’s house/ apartment

    My question: how would you reconcile this margin of inequity without yourself becoming a feminist? Is that possible? The only way I can see is to put restrictions on men, which is unfair to the majority of men who aren’t criminals, or to put restrictions on women (telling them to not go out, making them take self-defense classes, making them carry weapons, making them take extra precautions, etc.) which is unfair to women. I think currently America’s solution is to restrict both sexes.

    So, if it were up to you, how would you decide to solve some of the problems that women face? Is it possible to garner awareness for women’s problems without resorting to feminism? If you could end feminism tomorrow, would women be worse off?

    Lastly, I’d like you to know that just because I’ve talked about the discrepancies facing women does not mean that I don’t acknowledge discrepancies favoring women, or marginalize certain disadvantages facing men. I think they are all equally important; however, I don’t want to bore you, so I think that has to be the subject of another email. All the best,

    Sophia
  2. Posted by: Noobius on 2/9/2010 8:00 AM
    Gravatar
    "the potential risk of being a female victim of male perpetrators, and then estimate the potential risk of being a male victim of female perpetrators" and "I think we’d agree that women face considerable more danger"

    Yes, but you forgot 2 categories of violence: male on male and female on female. From what statistics i've seen, at least in the US, 75% of victims of violence are men (I don't remember if this is after you exclude rape or not, either way the percentage stays within +/-10% of the original)
  3. Posted by: thecreepyguy on 2/9/2010 9:57 PM
    Gravatar
    "Walking alone day or night down a street
    Going to a party
    Going to a nightclub
    Riding the bus
    Taking a road trip
    Traveling abroad
    Waiting at a bus stop
    Walking to one’s car (evening, night)
    Jogging
    Going to an acquaintance’s house/ apartment
    "

    You are aware that men are more likely to be victims of violent crime?
  4. Posted by: Ray on 2/10/2010 4:44 AM
    Gravatar
    This should really be 14 questions because #8 was so incredibly moronic it made my eyes bleed upon reading it.
  5. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/10/2010 6:41 AM
    Gravatar
    @Sophia

    "I think we'd agree that women face considerable more danger, or the threat of danger."

    I associate myself with the commenter's above. Men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women do. The fact that this is not touted to an insane level is indicative of the level of chivalry that is deeply ingrained into our society.

    I feel I must anticipate a potential response. That the sex perpetrating most of the crimes against men will be other men. Firstly, this is irrelevant to the question which relates to women being in danger or in threat of danger irregardles of the sex of the perpetrator. Secondly. I don't care who is committing a wrong, what matters if it is wrong. This relates to your family guy comment. In the early days of feminism, the feminists who had legitimate points were opposed by a lot of women as well as men. It doesn't matter. If I can explain why something is wrong then it doesn't matter what genitals the person committing that wrong has.

    "My question: how would you reconcile this margin of inequity without yourself becoming a feminist? Is that possible?"

    Your image of feminism is such that a person who wants good for women must necessarily be a feminist. This is wrong. Say I were to create a whole new movement which stands for not beating kittens, and I say to you that if you're not prepared to join my movement then that means that you want to beat kittens, no matter what other dodgy things are included in my movement. Essentially if you're not with us then you're against us. This is the crap that people pull when they say that a feminist is someone who believes in equality.

    "So, if it were up to you, how would you decide to solve some of the problems that women face? Is it possible to garner awareness for women's problems without resorting to feminism? If you could end feminism tomorrow, would women be worse off?"

    First I need a comprehensive list of issues that can be backed up logically. This is normally where it begins and ends with my problems with feminism since they fail to list or back-up any legitimate causes. Take the wage gap. Many feminists make the case that a disparity in the ages of men and women in the same field means that systemic sexism is keeping the women down. However, there are many good arguments against this (consult the work of Warren Farrell - the man from the today show clip). Rather than responding, the feminists push their wage gap view.

    Also, why do we need to resort to feminism? If we want to solve a problem then propose a solution. You don't need to turn to feminists. If we ended feminism tomorrow then women would be worse off in some ways, since their unfair and sexist privileges may be rolled back a little. Kinda like how slave owners are worse off when slavery is ended.
  6. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/10/2010 3:07 PM
    Gravatar
    I had an English friend who always referred to America as the "colonies". I was curious.
  7. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/10/2010 10:29 PM
    Gravatar
    I don't see how more male victims of violence has any bearing on the situations I listed. It is possible for there to be more violence against men in society and still have these situations incur a greater risk to women. There are also threats unique to women. For instance, men wouldn't be threatened by the risk of someone slipping a reefer in their drink at a nightclub, or not go jogging on a morning because the risk of getting pulled into some guy's van loomed to large. I stand by the claim that "women face considerable more danger" in the circumstances I listed, mainly sex related, and it's possible to also agree that men face more danger in society at large. Also, women have to deal with this danger BECAUSE they are women, whereas a man (men get robbed more) doesn't get robbed solely for the fact that he's a man.
    And, as for the Family Guy comment, my point was that some men bashing in the media is not female or feminist perpetrated. If you want to get rid of commercials with men getting kicked in the crotch you need to first convince an audience of men to stop laughing at it. Women have a vested interest in seeing their men not get kicked in the crotch.
  8. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/10/2010 10:50 PM
    Gravatar
    If you'd like, I'll put together a 'comprehensive set of issues' that I think hamper ambitions of equality for both women and men, but I'm too busy with college and work right now and I'd like to be more thoughtful about it. Wait a week or two, if you care to.
  9. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/10/2010 11:38 PM
    Gravatar
    Sure. Thank you.
  10. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/10/2010 11:43 PM
    Gravatar
    As to your newest points. When I read what you had written a study that I read a while back from the BBC. I shall try to dredge it up but the jist was that women are less the victims of violent crime but fear violent crime more than men do. This doesn't speak well of the female character to be honest. Your thought is indicative of this. Listing fears, some of which are completely overrated (I can't remember ever hearing of a woman being bundles into a van in her morning jog). If women stopped being so fearful and guided by their emotions then they would be less likely to buy into demagougic movements like feminism.
  11. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/11/2010 3:36 AM
    Gravatar
    You're absolutely right. Women are never followed by men in cars when they walk or jog down the street (I've been) or have been sexually assaulted on the street (I've been, twice), or worry about getting drunk or high for fear of rape at parties (I do), or ever get their ass grabbed on the New York subway. I see "woman mysteriously disappeared" stories and "have you seen me" pictures all the time, only to be followed up by "woman's body found in desert" but, that's understandable, that probably never happens where you live.

    http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/sex-offenses-new-york-subway/

    I'm very glad, now that I know my fear is a figment of my overactive imagination, that I can now walk the streets at night without having to worry about getting gang raped, and go to any stranger/acquaintance's house I want in a weekend. And you're right, it is irrational to be apprehensive about the fact that a close to sixty sex offenders live in my neighborhood, and just the registered ones.

    Men can't understand what it's like to fear rape and everything associated with rape (except in prison). Your dismissal of it as a victim complex is disturbing.

  12. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/11/2010 7:38 AM
    Gravatar
    Your point was somewhat of a non sequitur anyway. We were talking about the disparate risks involved in certain situations, not how women feel about those risks. The risk of something (date rape, for instance) would remain the same, whatever it is, irregardless of how much a woman feared it, or even if she didn't fear it at all. Also I find I'm told I need to take responsibility as a teenage girl for not getting myself into those dangerous situations (the implication is that it's my fault if I get in trouble), and yet, when I do take precautions, I'm told that I'm irrational and have a victim mentality.
  13. Posted by: Mith on 2/11/2010 8:49 AM
    Gravatar
    "There are also threats unique to women. For instance, men wouldn't be threatened by the risk of someone slipping a reefer in their drink at a nightclub,"

    Um...why not? I personally wouldn't trust any woman near my drink unsupervised lest they were my girlfriend or someone I knew I absolutely could trust.

    Men, more than anyone else, hate (and perhaps) fear being dominated. And I don't mean a Men vs. Women thing either--males are very much competitive and to lose--to be dominated is something that's incredibly violating.

    Of course, now men can face another problem. A poster from a webboard I visit says a friend of his said he was forced into sex when a couple of girls demanded that he have sex with them. When he refuesed (he had this crush on this girl he'd just met and didn't want any part of this), they threatened that if he didn't, they'd accuse him of rape.

    And chances are, even if he didn't go to jail (big if), he'd be labeled as a rapist by society in general. Look at the lacross team in America a year or so ago. Accursed of rape by a woman and despite having no evidence--in fact there being evidence that they were nowhere near her at the time of the alleged rape (which of course, kept changing times), they were thrown out of college and pretty much considered guilty. Rosie even went on the record--after the Attorny General said that the men were innocent--that they did it.

    " or not go jogging on a morning because the risk of getting pulled into some guy's van loomed to large."

    Do you honestly think that when I go out walking, I don't consider other men and women to be potential dangers? I consider a good amount of people I pass to be just that.

    "I stand by the claim that "women face considerable more danger" in the circumstances I listed, mainly sex related, and it's possible to also agree that men face more danger in society at large. Also, women have to deal with this danger BECAUSE they are women, whereas a man (men get robbed more) doesn't get robbed solely for the fact that he's a man."

    No. A woman may be in more danger when she IS attacked than a male, but that's because of biological reasons. It has nothing to do with some sort of hatred against women. And even if women were attacked more often, why is this considered a reflection of upstanding citizens? We don't give the guy a pat on the back and tell him to go play; he goes to fucking jail. If anything, the only reason I could see an attacker attacking a woman is either for disturbing reasons--or in the case of theft, because he believes her to be a weaker target.
  14. Posted by: Mith on 2/11/2010 9:01 AM
    Gravatar
    "You're absolutely right. Women are never followed by men in cars when they walk or jog down the street (I've been) or have been sexually assaulted on the street (I've been, twice), or worry about getting drunk or high for fear of rape at parties (I do), or ever get their ass grabbed on the New York subway. I see "woman mysteriously disappeared" stories and "have you seen me" pictures all the time, only to be followed up by "woman's body found in desert" but, that's understandable, that probably never happens where you live.

    http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/sex-offenses-new-york-subway/

    I'm very glad, now that I know my fear is a figment of my overactive imagination, that I can now walk the streets at night without having to worry about getting gang raped, and go to any stranger/acquaintance's house I want in a weekend. And you're right, it is irrational to be apprehensive about the fact that a close to sixty sex offenders live in my neighborhood, and just the registered ones.

    Men can't understand what it's like to fear rape and everything associated with rape (except in prison). Your dismissal of it as a victim complex is disturbing."

    I'm sorry, I do live in the states and in the whole two decades of my life, I have never heard of someone being legally captured in a subway, raped, and then get off scott free for it.

    You cannot blame men in general because some men rape. Just like I can't blame you for being guilty of rape when a bunch of teenage girls beat a boy and rape him with a broomstick. Where do you get this idea that these fears, these things that go bump in the night, come just haunt women?

    Do you honestly think I don't worry about getting jumped in a New York subway station by a bunch of sick fucks looking to rape me because they're fucked up in the head? Or do you honestly think that I don't worry about my girlfriend when she's out alone? Or my sister? My brothers?

    Just because men don't talk about their fears and insecurities doesn't mean they don't exist. We don't talk about them because our job isn't to sit in the corner and complain. Our job biologically is to go out into the maws of hell and if we're lucky enough, come back with food and assurances of someplace for people to sleep at night. We can't do that if we're constantly fretting over about something bad happening to us.

    I'm really curious as to ask why you think we're so evil and wicked.
  15. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/11/2010 10:39 AM
    Gravatar
    @Sophia

    “You're absolutely right. Women are never followed by men in cars when they walk or jog down the street (I've been) or have been sexually assaulted on the street (I've been, twice), or worry about getting drunk or high for fear of rape at parties (I do), or ever get their ass grabbed on the New York subway. I see "woman mysteriously disappeared" stories and "have you seen me" pictures all the time, only to be followed up by "woman's body found in desert" but, that's understandable, that probably never happens where you live.”

    This is the sign that the discussion is circling the drain. Your emotion is making you irrational and illogical. To state that men are more the victims of crime is to say that women never are?

    Please.

    Sleep on it, calm down, and then re-read what you wrote. The sceptically minded person must discard personal anecdotes. Your experience or personal feeling on the status of women is not objective evidence.

    It will pay to recap the discussion. You stated a number of instances where women should feel afraid. I know that women face particular worries (rape and sexual assault for instance) but we responded that men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime. I don’t want to play off grievances with you about who has it worse but this was all in response to your claim that “women face considerable more danger”. You need to provide a better response than your last one if you want to make your case effectively.
  16. Posted by: Noobius on 2/11/2010 11:05 AM
    Gravatar
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-436592/Drug-rape-myth-exposed-study-reveals-binge-drinking-blame.html

    Personaly, I can't stand the daily wail, but this study seems to suggest that date rape is a myth. Maybe you can find some other sources for it.
    So in light of this study, here's a pro tip for parties: if you can't handle the alcohol, don't drink so much.
  17. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/11/2010 3:49 PM
    Gravatar
    wow.. all right. First of all my link was to a story about the virtual pandemic of ass-grabbing on the New York subway. Second of all, your claims that men have fears too about getting raped by a bunch of women (with broomsticks, apparently) sounds like a bad porno. Men don't fear getting raped by women, but women fear getting raped by men. There's a discrepancy here, and that's my point. Mith, you worry about getting raped in the subway? OK, that's fine. My point was, whatever you fear, women fear it more and have more reason to. The whole point of my post was that there are dangers facing women that men don't have to worry about. Whether men face more danger in other areas was not my point. And date rape is a myth? Almost 40% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance, how many of those are on dates, I don't know. And I think all men are evil and wicked?

    "Our job biologically is to go out into the maws of hell and if we're lucky enough, come back with food and assurances of someplace for people to sleep at night."

    Yeah.. the reason you don't worry about getting raped and sexually assaulted isn't because you're manly biology won't let you complain, the reason is because that is not a legitimate threat to you!!

    This has gone on a tangent too long; my original post was not about which gender is in danger of more violence, it was about a discrepancy between the types of violence that women and men face. And my original question was: what is the MRA's proposed solution? There are three: 1. do nothing, 2. put the responsibility on the woman, 3. put responsibility on the man. Noobius' solution, apparently, was the second, tell the woman by saying she should be responsible with alcohol.

    And Mith, yes, women are in danger because they are women. A man pinches a woman's butt BECAUSE it is a woman's butt.

    And, I'm not whining. You are in denial that there is danger to women.. I'm simply trying to make a case for it.

  18. Posted by: Mith on 2/11/2010 6:18 PM
    Gravatar
    "wow.. all right. First of all my link was to a story about the virtual pandemic of ass-grabbing on the New York subway."

    I don't know anyone who considers a New York subway to be perfectly safe. I certainly never would.

    "Second of all, your claims that men have fears too about getting raped by a bunch of women (with broomsticks, apparently) sounds like a bad porno."

    No, that actually happened. A prepubescent boy was raped by several women ranging from 14-19. They tied him up, beat him, and raped him with a broom stick. Or this story:

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\02\02\story_2-2-2009_pg7_24

    Three women drugged a man and raped him before dumping him next to a river. Or this one:


    http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/26ff2af67033417a9b7eb7ce20fc1d16/24-08-2005-10-52/Man_gang-raped_by_3_women

    Interestingly enough, three women again. Is there something about women that they just like to rape men in groups? Well, how about something slightly different:

    http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/2009/06/19/woman-on-trial-for-raping-10-men/

    Woman rapes ten different men by easing them into a false sense of security, drugging them, and then raped them. They all woke up in the hospital with a rather nasty list of problems.

    On second thought, I don't think I trust anyone save for my girlfriend around my drink. Ever.

    "Men don't fear getting raped by women, but women fear getting raped by men."

    Yes, because you know this because...how? You don't. You're not a man, are you? I happen to be one. And while I'm not curled up in a corner looking at every shadow like a potential rapist, I will tell you that it is a concern.

    "There's a discrepancy here, and that's my point. Mith, you worry about getting raped in the subway? OK, that's fine. My point was, whatever you fear, women fear it more and have more reason to. The whole point of my post was that there are dangers facing women that men don't have to worry about."

    Um...what? How can you just say that when a man--me-- is worried about potential danger in a subway? Your response does an entire 360 throughout. And what makes you think that women have more of a concern? Because they're physically weaker? It doesn't take that much to gain the upperhand when you ambush someone you know. One good blow to the back of the head, gut, or groin area could put a man at a quick disadvantage. Nor is it really that hard for someone to obtain a weapon that essentially puts the common man at a disadvantage. Knives, clubs, and guns are all effective and most can be concealed to some extent (well, not clubs).

    And as we saw, a woman with a gun is still a threat.

    "Whether men face more danger in other areas was not my point."

    But you act as if this is something we should all be rushing to fix because it's unfair to women. Even though men suffer from it too...so what's your argument? That we should stop crimes? We do that. That's why we have something called a police force.

    "And date rape is a myth? Almost 40% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance, how many of those are on dates, I don't know. And I think all men are evil and wicked?"

    So easily less than half? And does it specifically say they were romantically involved or dating? Or some freak who they knew that took advantage of them? And before we go on, what do you consider date rape? Someone who drugs another person and then takes advantage of them, someone who forces themselves upon the other, or a couple where one party is reluctant but is eventually "convinced"?

    "Yeah.. the reason you don't worry about getting raped and sexually assaulted isn't because you're manly biology won't let you complain, the reason is because that is not a legitimate threat to you!!"

    Reminds me of a story of an eighteen year old. Somehow he ended up arrested for a minor offense and while his friends were at the prom enjoying themsleves he spent the night getting gang raped in jail. He now suffers psycological problems, mainly revolving around the fact that at one point he actually gave up and let them have their way, which he has come to regret for the rest of his life.

    Or about the three stories above I just linked you to where men were lured into a trap laid out by a woman who raped them. But then again, I suppose that's not a legitament concern to you. Clearly these were just exceptionally stupid men who were exceptionally stupid enough to trust a woman.

    As for your original points, I have no real part in that, so I'm forced to skip it.

    "And Mith, yes, women are in danger because they are women. A man pinches a woman's butt BECAUSE it is a woman's butt."

    ...What?

    You should work at a resturant some time. The people slapping other's butts the most? W-O-M-E-N. They'll slap men and women's butts alike. Hell, they've even fondled other's people's breats and groped them where they shouldn't be groped.

    In contrast, when a manager gave someone a woman a friendly bop on the head with a book, she responded by screaming "sexual harrasment", nearly getting said manager fired, and then a few weeks later, wondered if the company would be willing to sponser her buying sexually appealing outfits for some charity she was doing.

    Is it right for a man to pinch a woman's butt without permission? No, of course not. I'd never say that it would be. And yet, women can do it without any worry of repercussions because when a woman does something to a man, he's expected to handle it and "walk it off" while as a woman, even the slightest touch or look gives them a legitement reason to put a poor bastard in jail.

    "And, I'm not whining. You are in denial that there is danger to women.. I'm simply trying to make a case for it."

    I never denied that there was violence against women. Such a claim would be silly. You seem to think however, that women are the only ones with this sort of concern or danger in their lives. You're not.
  19. Posted by: Noobius on 2/11/2010 6:22 PM
    Gravatar
    ". You are in denial that there is danger to women.. I'm simply trying to make a case for it."

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/vsx2.cfm
    From that graph, who looks to be in more danger? What you're insisting on is that women have more reason to be afraid of violence, which just isn't true. No one is denying the fact that women have things to be afraid of, just that you tend to exagerate for whatever reason.

    "I think we’d agree that women face considerable more danger, or the threat of danger." and "my original post was not about which gender is in danger of more violence, it was about a discrepancy between the types of violence"

    Make up your mind.



    "Almost 40% of rapes are committed by an acquaintance, how many of those are on dates, I don't know"

    The study I linked to refered to spiking drinks in order to facilitate rape, which is what I mean by date rape.
  20. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/11/2010 6:46 PM
    Gravatar
    I'm looking at the graph and for the year 2008, the victimization rates of men and women are very close. This is probably because women are getting out of the house more. I'm asserting that women have cause to be afraid of all the violence men do (mugging, etc.), and in addition they have to fear sexual violence. Sexual victimization is very, very prevalent; I was molested when I was younger and since have experienced all sorts of harassment and assault in all types of situations, including assault on the street, being followed, and having someone expose themself to me. It is reported by the US Department of Justice that rape is the most common violent crime on campuses and that one in four women will be sexually assaulted. So, this is a very relevant thing that interferes with my life; I live by restrictions that most men don't think about. So far you've said that rape and sexual assault were all equal threats to men. They're not. That's my point; that this type of violence is unfair because women are many, many times more vulnerable to it. So far everyone on this post has either gone to great pains to marginalize this, deny it, or accuse me of being emotional and imaginative. This type of reaction makes me think that MR is a dangerous movement that needs to be stopped.

    Mith, women slap each others butts without sexual intent. "A friendly bop on the head?" Let me read the story; obviously people are interpreting it differently.

    You probably do have potential danger in the subway. However, I'm talking about sexual danger.
  21. Posted by: Mith on 2/11/2010 7:47 PM
    Gravatar
    "I'm looking at the graph and for the year 2008, the victimization rates of men and women are very close. This is probably because women are getting out of the house more."

    Just now? In 2008? They've been getting out of the house for decades. It's probably very close because the facts are, men are in just as much danger as women are.

    " I'm asserting that women have cause to be afraid of all the violence men do (mugging, etc.), and in addition they have to fear sexual violence."

    ...What? Did you miss the three stories about women raping men? How is that not sexual violence?

    " Sexual victimization is very, very prevalent; I was molested when I was younger and since have experienced all sorts of harassment and assault in all types of situations, including assault on the street, being followed, and having someone expose themself to me."

    And I'm sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, that's happened to men too. Men have been raped. Men have had people expose themselves to them. Men have been molested as boys(anyone remember the Catholic Church?). Men have had all of those situations hit them too.

    " It is reported by the US Department of Justice that rape is the most common violent crime on campuses and that one in four women will be sexually assaulted."

    Do you have a link? And what is considered to be sexual assualt in their report? Furthermore, how did the women act in the report? Ie, if they go and get wasted with a bunch of guys, you can't seriously expect me to think that this is a serious case study.

    " So, this is a very relevant thing that interferes with my life; I live by restrictions that most men don't think about."

    And so do many men. Argus has a story about a man whose been so hurt by women who think that all men are pigs that he has grown to hate women and wants nothing to do with them.

    And no. He's not gay. But he's been hurt by so many women that he has fallen into the belief that all women are out to get men. And really, if the image that women want to paint is that men are all evil creatures who are to be despised, then why would we want anything to do with them?

    "So far you've said that rape and sexual assault were all equal threats to men. They're not. That's my point; that this type of violence is unfair because women are many, many times more vulnerable to it."

    On what evidence? Men can just as easily be overpowered, I've shown you that. Men can be drugged, stopped by a gun, or even overpowered with the right type of weapon. Men may be biologically more designed for combat, but that doesn't mean we can instantly win a battle or stand a good chance. And most predators by the way, are typically armed and use ambush tactics, so we're just as much at a disadvantage as you are, save for some extra strength that any proper ambush would neutralize.

    "So far everyone on this post has either gone to great pains to marginalize this, deny it, or accuse me of being emotional and imaginative."

    People get emotional in debates. I've seen other cool headed people go apeshit and I've thrown my own bombs in my time. It happens. Saying that you seem to be getting emotional is more than anything, an attempt to help you reign yourself in. Because when someone get's emotional they make mistakes and they can make themselves look foolish.

    Obviously, this is the last thing that you want.

    "This type of reaction makes me think that MR is a dangerous movement that needs to be stopped."

    The who?

    "Mith, women slap each others butts without sexual intent."

    That would of course explain, why she followed up said words with "I'm going to fuck you," "Hey baby, what are you doing tonight," and so forth?

    And of course, are you now claiming that men can't slap butts without sexual intent?

    " "A friendly bop on the head?" Let me read the story; obviously people are interpreting it differently."

    Heh, so now here comes my ego...

    First, I'd have you know that I'm more than capable in my english skills. I'm not going to so easily misinterpret the information to the point that I got a sexual assualt down to "bop on the head".

    But back to the discussion, which is the second point, is that I was there. It wasn't in the newspaper.

    "You probably do have potential danger in the subway. However, I'm talking about sexual danger."

    Based on what? Men are at considerable danger. I've already shown you that, it's just that their attackers often drug them beforehand, leaving them totally defenseless. Or they pull a gun on them. It doesn't matter how strong you are if a woman's got a gun trained on you, because unless she happens to be a spaz on par with Jar-Jar, she's not going to miss.

    And really, how is any danger different from sexual danger? What, you think men just get kicked and punched a few times, and then that's that? What about the stabbing and the shootings? And the dying?

    So we should accept potential danger as the norm, but as soon as sexual danger enters the area, suddenly women are being oppressed by men in general?

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to make you feel miserable, but you're saying some rather...challengable things and people respond strongly to that. Unfortunately, this has pretty much led to a response from the people who view this site to respond in mass and by now, no doubt you feel as if a pack of wolves has surrounded you to overwhelm and tear apart your arguments. I understand, I know what it's like to be in a debate where you're vastly outnumbered. It happens.

    You seem like a nice girl, but I think you've come into this debate rather short handed. Just from Argus's writting I could tell you he'd be someone who knows his way around the debating circle, and I've got some considerable experience as well. I'm not sure about Noobus, but I don't think he's a stranger to this sort of field either.

    We're not saying that women aren't in danger of violence from males, sexual or not. Nor are we saying there isn't a biological advantage on the male's part. But on that same note, you overestimate our advantage. I think you should take some time to cool off (everyone needs it, I've been in some real sluggers where I've had to drop out or take a break simply because the sheer amount of energy this stuff can take), think about what you've said. Think about what we've said. Look some things up. Look at weak points in your argument and then in ours. Surrender where you're wrong or can't effectively argue and then challenge us on the arguments you find weak or wrong.

    And remember, just because you can't debate it in an argument, doesn't make you absolutely wrong forever. If you believe something has changed or new evidence has been acquired, then please bring it up and see how it does.

    You may not be emotional, but you may be set in "I need to win" mode, which will leave you making up more and more absurd arguments. And yes, I've been stuck in that before. I just want to make it clear, we're not saying your being emotional because you're a woman or anything, it's just that this sort of thing can happen, without people even realizing it. You won't be called a coward or a liar if you take a day or two for a break to examine the debate or look things up.

  22. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/11/2010 11:27 PM
    Gravatar
    I'm not sure how this is a 'need to win' argument, or even an argument at all. You stated that rape and sexual assault/harassment were equal threats to men. You described a certain scenario, a man pulling a gun on another man, or a man being overpowered by another man. That is possible. But just because it's possible, doesn't mean it happens with equal prevalence and consistency as it does women, or, if it does, I'd like to see the study results/ statistics. I'm not denying that men are raped, or that men are raped by women, but you cited no more than three instances, which, when you think about the hundreds of thousands women each year getting raped, well.. I don't know what to tell you. And furthermore, I'd like to remind you that violence, sexual or otherwise, was not even the original point of my post.
  23. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/11/2010 11:36 PM
    Gravatar

    You also asked for some statistics from the Justice Department so here they are. I tried to find the most recent I could. If you have results that indicate that men are at similar risk, let me know. I think we simply misunderstand each other rather than disagree.

    * In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4
    women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape. (Warshaw 1994)
    * 13% of college women indicated they had been forced to have sex
    in a dating situation. (Johnson and Sigler, Jnl. of Interpersonal
    Violence, 2000)
    * In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 42% of
    rape victims told no-one and only 5% reported it to the police.
    (Warshaw 1994)
    An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and
    99% of offenders are male. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999)

  24. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/11/2010 11:40 PM
    Gravatar
    By the way, I admit I did get frustrated, for which I'm sorry.
  25. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/12/2010 1:08 AM
    Gravatar
    "By the way, I admit I did get frustrated, for which I'm sorry"

    Me too.. that is why I have just one question.

    Is there any place where a woman should be reasonably exposed to risk and/or danger of being overpowered?

    Since you have included something as mundane like "Walking alone day or night down a street", which is not assured for anyone - not even armed-to-the-teeth hyperfascistic-militarized cops! I wonder if it is time to hybridize women into the Naavi, so they can be absolutely be safe without taking any other mere-humanly measures like arming yourself, staying alert and look out and fight for their own safety like every human male does (and fails quite a bit as a human naturally would).
    Either that, or the entire society should put aside their day jobs (if they have them these days) and instead make sure that Womyn are safe, that the world is free of crime against womyn. Because womyn are truly "the new aristocrats" for whom everyone else must slavishly provide.
  26. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/12/2010 2:04 AM
    Gravatar
    Are you angry you have to accountable for the violence you cause? Actually every taxpayer in the country must "slavishly provide" for men because the 85-90% of the violent crime they cause costs our country billions of dollar a year. Not to mention white collar crime costing us 300 billion a year. Juvenile detention centers, court hearings, prisons... the list goes on and on. You're confirming my prejudices about the MRA movement, by the way.
  27. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/12/2010 2:14 AM
    Gravatar
    Also our nation was forced to "slavishly provide" more than 3 trillion dollars and more than 30,000 soldiers' lives to quell a bunch of radicalized terrorist MEN, let me say that again, MEN, whose favorite pasttime is blowing up buildings and killing each other with power drills on the outskirts of Baghdad.
  28. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/12/2010 6:13 AM
    Gravatar
    Mith, I think you keep misunderstanding me in small ways that skew my points and prevent this discussion from going forward. I'll try to be more clear, becuase I think that's the problem.

    1. I did not claim that sexual victimization happened only to women and never to men. I only said (and I stand by this) that women are at MORE danger for sexual victimization in almost every situation (except perhaps the church), and thus are more threatened. I'm talking in terms of more or less, not absolutes.

    2. "So we should accept potential danger as the norm, but as soon as sexual danger enters the area, suddenly women are being oppressed by men in general?"

    I never said that. We are all oppressed by crime and the fear of crime.

    3. You keep asserting that men fear a similar threat of rape and sexual assault, but only provide isolated incidents as examples. I'd like you to put it in context and identify some statistics or percentages, and then compare these to women's percentages. Then we could know if men are indeed similarly threatened.

    4. You seem to think that because men are victims of violence, this makes women victims of violence less important. This is like if I said, "We need to find a solution to child poverty in the States." and you said, "But child poverty in Africa is through the roof!" Do you see how when I bring up violence against women, you change the subject to violence against men? They are two different subjects, and mentioning isn't relevant to the other. Violence against women is a problem, and saying "well, men are victims too" doesn't change that problem or make it any better.

    5. "And really, if the image that women want to paint is that men are all evil creatures who are to be despised, then why would we want anything to do with them?"

    What?

    6. "Men can just as easily (in terms of sexual violence) be overpowered, I've shown you that. Men can be drugged, stopped by a gun, or even overpowered with the right type of weapon."

    Your argument is basically "it COULD happen". I'd like you to please provide evidence that it does as much as it does women, as that was the claim you were making.

    7. My point that sexual violence was a greater risk to women was not even the original point of discussion. It was actually my premise; my point was, how does one solve this problem? By 1. restrict the man, 2. restrict the woman, or 3. do nothing. In our country we implement a sort of hybrid of the first two: we lock men up and we tell women to carry mace and take self defense classes. In other parts of the world, Muslim countries, they tend to do more of the second; they restrict women by not letting them leave the house and make them wear burkas. My original question: what would you do?
  29. Posted by: Noobius on 2/12/2010 7:50 AM
    Gravatar
    "
    * In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4
    women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape. (Warshaw 1994)"

    Is this that same study that asked: "have you ever had sex, and then regreted it?" as its main question. I remember reading about the study that got the 1 in 4 result having this question. If it is, I seem to recal that (somewhere around, I don't have the exact figures) 80% of "victims" said they didn't think they were raped and 60% saying they were still dating the "attacker".

    Just to clarify my point about that graph: if you read below it, you will see that rape was included in the statistics.

    Now on to "My point that sexual violence was a greater risk to women was not even the original point of discussion. It was actually my premise; my point was, how does one solve this problem?"

    I'm trying to wrap my head around this, but I just can't understand what you're trying to say. It reminds me of those posters on campuses saying "men, stop raping women"(or something to that effect). It's basically saying all men share the guilt of those who commit the actual crime.
    So what you're asking (or you seem to be asking, please correct me if i'm wrong) is what should we, as rapists/potential rapists, do to stop ourselves. To which my answer is go fuck yourself, I've never raped anyone.
    There are laws against rape and other forms of violence that protect everyone, not just men. The MRA movement isn't the police, nor does it claim to be. Why should we be held responsible for other people's actions? What you're implying is morally obscene.
  30. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/12/2010 5:11 PM
    Gravatar
    "It's basically saying all men share the guilt of those who commit the actual crime.
    So what you're asking (or you seem to be asking, please correct me if i'm wrong) is what should we, as rapists/potential rapists, do to stop ourselves. To which my answer is go fuck yourself, I've never raped anyone.
    There are laws against rape and other forms of violence that protect everyone, not just men. The MRA movement isn't the police, nor does it claim to be. Why should we be held responsible for other people's actions? What you're implying is morally obscene."

    If I were implying that, then yes. But I'm not. Did you even read my post? First I get accused of thinking all men are evil and wicked, then I get accused of thinking that all women are oppressed at the hands of evil men, and now you think I want to straight-jacket all men to prevent them from raping, apparently. My question was this, I'll say it again: who has more responsibility to prevent rape and sexual assault, the man or the woman?

    And no, the Department of Justice doesn't get its info from one study. It does lots of studies (cross-sectional, longitudinal, survey) and looks for patterns, or so I'm told. If you're curious about the Warshaw study, you can see the results on 'Google scholar', I think.

    I'm tired of arguing in circles. So far my experience with MRAs is that, whenever I bring up a woman's issue, they immediately get extremely defensive, say things like, "Well men are victims too!", or are in just plain denial, "Men fear rape and sexual assault just as much as women!". I'm disillusioned by this extreme circumventing of accountability.
  31. Posted by: Mith on 2/12/2010 6:47 PM
    Gravatar
    "Mith, I think you keep misunderstanding me in small ways that skew my points and prevent this discussion from going forward. I'll try to be more clear, becuase I think that's the problem.

    1. I did not claim that sexual victimization happened only to women and never to men. I only said (and I stand by this) that women are at MORE danger for sexual victimization in almost every situation (except perhaps the church), and thus are more threatened. I'm talking in terms of more or less, not absolutes."

    But at the same time, you seem to be thinking that this is oppression against women.

    "2. I never said that. We are all oppressed by crime and the fear of crime."

    No we're not. Crime rate in this country has been in a more or less decline for decades. The only thing you should worry about is another great depression, which would probably cause crime to skyrocket.

    Saying that crime, as it is, oppresses us is like me saying that accidents oppress people.

    "3. You keep asserting that men fear a similar threat of rape and sexual assault, but only provide isolated incidents as examples. I'd like you to put it in context and identify some statistics or percentages, and then compare these to women's percentages. Then we could know if men are indeed similarly threatened."

    Something does not have to be real or plausible in order for it to instill fear into someone. Also, I think you should first prove that women are raped more than men, since you did claim it first.

    As a side note, on the 1/4 statistic of women being raped, this woman professor goes into just how flawed the concept of 1 in 4 really is and how the entire thing was horribly flawed:

    http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html

    Even the woman who did the research on it was basically put down as having admitted to making a mistake in the questioning process.

    "4. You seem to think that because men are victims of violence, this makes women victims of violence less important."

    I never said that. Kinda funny how polorazing we are on points #1 and #4, isn't it?

    " This is like if I said, "We need to find a solution to child poverty in the States." and you said, "But child poverty in Africa is through the roof!" Do you see how when I bring up violence against women, you change the subject to violence against men? They are two different subjects, and mentioning isn't relevant to the other. Violence against women is a problem, and saying "well, men are victims too" doesn't change that problem or make it any better."

    No see, your analogy is bad. You're attempting to potray it as something that it is, but your conclusion based off this is someone who'd be using a different analogy.

    After all, you believe that this violence against women is coming from some sort of equality issue. Ie, that if men were more responsible as a group, that women wouldn't get raped as much. Here's the problem; men are not an organized group. Women are not an organized group. It'd be no better than saying that black and hispanic people are responsible for street violence due to their lower classes gravitating towards street gangs.

    The problem is, your analogy isn't correct. It demands that people are suffering the same, but unrelated cause. Ie, the starving of children on Africa is not the same as the children starving in America. America is a rich country with most of its population well fed and doing fairly well. Africa is pretty much a sinkhole where a large portion of the population is starving.

    The proper analogy is the one I just provided; you're just blanketing that blacks and hispanics are responsible for violence on the streets because a good portion of their group are doing it, ignoring the fact that blacks are just as much victims as whites or asians. Therefore, your argument breaks down because you assume that an unorganized group should be held responsible for a subgroup that is organized and does things that the majority may find appalling or offensive.


    "5. What?"

    Women of the feminist groups indicate that men are overly aggressive, cruel, and some go as far to claim that the rapist mentality is part of normal male behavior. In other words, feminist groups are pushing men and women away from each other with distrust and hate.

    "6. Your argument is basically "it COULD happen"."

    No dear, it HAS happened. I've already shown you that much. This isn't some sort of physics class where we're talking about possible theories. This has happened to men before and it's been happening for a long time.


    " I'd like you to please provide evidence that it does as much as it does women, as that was the claim you were making."

    And just what source do you want me to use? The Feminists or the MRA?

    "7. My point that sexual violence was a greater risk to women was not even the original point of discussion. It was actually my premise; my point was, how does one solve this problem? By 1. restrict the man, 2. restrict the woman, or 3. do nothing. In our country we implement a sort of hybrid of the first two: we lock men up and we tell women to carry mace and take self defense classes. In other parts of the world, Muslim countries, they tend to do more of the second; they restrict women by not letting them leave the house and make them wear burkas. My original question: what would you do?"

    The problem with your point is that it just doesn't work.

    You cannot stop rape from happening. Not with our current level of technology and control of the world. All you can do is best reduce rape by improving living conditions (that includes multiple things), monitoring public areas, and help train the victims to be more aware (ie, not every rape is brute force) and to be more capable of defending themsselves.

    And you still won't stop rape. Just as much as you can't stop crime. As long as people have a free choice, then they will find a way to try to break the law. And includes rape. If you really, really want to improve it though, I suggest that the local high school start teaching the importance of safety of that area in schools; teach kids what to watch out for and where not to go.

  32. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/12/2010 10:29 PM
    Gravatar
    There you go again.

    I asked you just one question. Since you know you cannot answer that one simple question, you ask me "Are you angry you have to accountable for the violence you cause?"
    Violence I cause? Amazing isn't it? If I had not asked one question, I would have never been accused of having caused violence. That is the cost I pay for asking a simple question - i.e. being labeled as a violent person who apparently is "angry", based on no evidence, no more knowledge than the question I asked - heck you don't even know if I am male or female!

    It is quite a show of how open minded feminists are - how interested they are in reasoning or debate.
  33. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/13/2010 3:03 AM
    Gravatar
    "As a side note, on the 1/4 statistic of women being raped, this woman professor goes into just how flawed the concept of 1 in 4 really is and how the entire thing was horribly flawed"

    I did not say one in four were raped. Please look at the statistics I listed again.

    "Violence I cause? Amazing isn't it? If I had not asked one question, I would have never been accused of having caused violence."

    Violence men in general cause! That's it! I'm tired of everything I say being taken completely and utterly out of context!

    "I suggest that the local high school start teaching the importance of safety of that area in schools; teach kids what to watch out for and where not to go."

    Well high schools have already began implementing this policy, only to be shot down with accusations of the "feminist indoctrination", rather on par with the "Obama socialist indoctrination".

    "No dear, it HAS happened. I've already shown you that much."

    No, you just referred to three isolated incidents. Please provide some statistics or something, and then compare those to statistics relevant to women. You're asserting that rape and sexual assault are just as prevalent and just as much as a threat to men. Please demonstrate this. And don't call me dear, ok?

    "No see, your analogy is bad. You're attempting to potray it as something that it is, but your conclusion based off this is someone who'd be using a different analogy."

    Again, what?

    "your argument breaks down because you assume that an unorganized group should be held responsible for a subgroup"

    No I'm not. Again, no....I'm not.

    "But at the same time, you seem to be thinking that this is oppression against women."

    In the sense that fear oppresses one, then yes. Women have to fear things that men don't have to fear AS MUCH.

    "Either that, or the entire society should put aside their day jobs (if they have them these days) and instead make sure that Womyn are safe, that the world is free of crime against womyn. Because womyn are truly "the new aristocrats" for whom everyone else must slavishly provide."

    Punjak, you're stupid, bitterly sexist, and completely wrong. I would make sense, but I think I'd just confuse you.

    This is pointless. Don't accuse feminists of being angry, sexist, or of making up statistics, or if you do, please appreciate the irony. I've been on men's rights forums and looked at posts like Angy Harry and the Happy Misogynist and yes, this has only confirmed that MRAs are a dangerous fringe group that should be stopped.



  34. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/13/2010 4:15 AM
    Gravatar
    "Punjak, you're stupid, bitterly sexist, and completely wrong"
    If you say so, then it must be so. And if it is so, then I am proud of it.

    "this has only confirmed that MRAs are a dangerous fringe group that should be stopped."

    Give it a try, why don't you? Hang on a sec, is that a threat of violence against me? Please don't hurt me - oh peaceful benign, mentally balanced feminist. *Cowers in fear*
  35. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/13/2010 6:10 AM
    Gravatar
    Well "dangerous fringe group" with a touch of lunacy, thanks to Mr. Retarded Troll (and proud of it!) here.
  36. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/13/2010 7:34 AM
    Gravatar
    Sophia. I think you came here with your mind made up as to MRA’s. Did I just waste my time answering your questions?
  37. Posted by: Noobius on 2/13/2010 3:53 PM
    Gravatar
    "My question was this, I'll say it again: who has more responsibility to prevent rape and sexual assault, the man or the woman?"

    and

    "My question: how would you reconcile this margin of inequity without yourself becoming a feminist? "

    Well, ok. I'll just answer to the question in the first quote: if you want to talk prevention, then women should be more responsible. I know this would immediately be labeled as "victim blaming", but if we're discussing prevention, then they aren't victims yet, are they?
    If you want to talk about responsibility after the fact, then the law is very clear: if you're guilty of rape, you go to jail. So clearly if a man rapes a woman, he's solely responsible for that.

    But of course this is all common sense, and I guess you already know all this. So my question is: what exactly would you like MRA's to propose?
  38. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 2/13/2010 4:50 PM
    Gravatar
    I'm going to take two sentences from Sophia that I think adequately reflect what I (and i assume others) see as a problem with feminists:

    "Are you angry you have to accountable for the violence you cause?" and a bit later, trying to sound a bit less misandric "Violence men in general cause!"

    Sophia does not seem to understand that both these sentences levy accusations at innocent men and demand that they be held accountable for the crimes of other individuals.

    This is exactly the type of accepted misandry (because this kind of reasoning IS accepted in our western society, as long as its directed at men) that MRA's are fighting against.

    If only she where capable of putting herself in our shoes for one minute when she writes this stuff.

    When Sophia states that women are more at risk of such and such crimes. We retort that men too are victims of such crimes because in an equal society the gender of the victim should not matter.

    Justice and assistance should be given in equal measure no matter the victim's color/gender/sexual preference etc. But it is feminists who continuously claim 'extra' victimhood for women. And who see any crime in which a woman is the victim as a crime against all women everywhere.

    When Mith states that he fears sexual aggression on the subways Sophia dimisses his fear out of hand, and then claims that "women fear it more". Again claiming some sort of 'extra' victimhood.
    If she has the right to so casually dismiss the fears of men, why exactly should we be so concerned about the fears of women ?
  39. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/13/2010 5:24 PM
    Gravatar
    It is quite likely that feminists cannot think or choose not to think of people as individuals. Aggregates or class groupings are essential to most collectivist ideologies, because cause, conditions and costs are individual and very often - unique. And as a sloppy way of thinking, collectivists do not want to inspect the individual case, and fix whatever was wrong with it. This is also observable in the proposed solutions - notice they are also collective solutions, not individual solutions.
    Try asking a feminist "What do you want ME to do?" - and insist on a list of things to do - and how that alleviates the problem they are talking about. Apart from vague thought policing demands and turning you into a feminist, there is nothing actionable they can demand that demonstrably helps the problem they are trying to bash you with.

    Ms. Sophia Karas,
    3 men have prevented more rapes and violence against women than ALL feminists that ever lived put together.
    John Moses Browning
    Horace Smith
    Daniel B. Wesson

    Never once will they be given any credit in your "violence against women" rantings. Feel free to investigate and once you find any element of truth to it - try to break the stereotype and question what exactly is it that feminists are trying to accomplish?
  40. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 2/13/2010 6:01 PM
    Gravatar
    Noobius already touched on this but I would also like say something about the following question because its a typical one:

    "My question was this, I'll say it again: who has more responsibility to prevent rape and sexual assault, the man or the woman?"

    First, your question is not very good (or should I say not very honest) because it can be interpreted in two ways: either you are talking about rape and sexual assault in general, and asking which sex bears the most responsibility for it. Or you are talking about one specific rape case where we are to assume that the man is the rapist and the woman the victim.

    If it is the first, then the answer is neither. No sex can be held accountable for the actions of individuals. I suspect that Pankaj is right in his post above that feminists do not see justice in the light of individual responsibility. But if one claims that the male gender carries the responsibility of preventing rape then that is very simply a discriminatory and misandric statement.

    If you are talking about an individual case however, it should be noted that you did not specify who committed the rape, but it is obvious that whomever commits the crime is responsible.

    I see this kind dishonest questions and statements all over feminist websites, and often in the MSM. So much in fact that I must often conclude that it is not done out of ignorance, but out of malice.
  41. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 12:02 AM
    Gravatar
    I'm going to clear some things up, and then I'm going to leave, because this penchant for spin doctoring each and every statement I make is irritating. I find I'm defending points I never even made.

    First of all, I'd like to point out again that I never self-identified as a feminist. I don't have enough information on both feminist and MRA topics as of yet. It's amusing/depressing that you refer to me as one and then attack me as one.

    "Never once will they be given any credit in your "violence against women" rantings. "

    How can I give them any credit if I haven't heard of them until now? Do you realize that violence against women was not EVEN the original point of my post, much less rant (?).

    "Are you angry you have to accountable for the violence you cause?" and a bit later, trying to sound a bit less misandric "Violence men in general cause!"
    "Sophia does not seem to understand that both these sentences levy accusations at innocent men and demand that they be held accountable for the crimes of other individuals."

    No, it doesn't. Panjak was complaining that our law enforcement was responsible for preventing violence against women (and men). I think his original tarp of reasoning was "Well I guess the whole of society should just put aside their day jobs and make sure women are safe! Those damn, greedy aristocrats! We all have to slavishly provide (like slaves, apparently) for women these days!" Yes, some men cause violence, violence that taxpayers must, to use Panjak's phrase "slavishly provide for". This isn't misandry, this if fact. Facts aren't misandry. And no, I'm not accusing innocent men.. why are you trying to make me sound guilty of that?

    "But if one claims that the male gender carries the responsibility of preventing rape then that is very simply a discriminatory and misandric statement."

    People who rape should carry the responsibility. The fact that this is 99% of men is not discriminatory, but explains why the responsibility is usually put on them.

    "But it is feminists who continuously claim 'extra' victimhood for women."

    Well women do experience 'extra victimhood' in rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse. Are you denying this? Citing that men also experience violence does not mitigate this fact. It is very possible that men experience more violence in society at large and STILL women can incur a greater risk of the things mentioned. Everyone so far has denied this. If so, please produce some evidence that men are at equal risk for rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse (I realize they are in prison; I'm talking about day to day life).

    "Sophia. I think you came here with your mind made up as to MRA’s. Did I just waste my time answering your questions?"

    Arguseyes, what would you want me to think upon reading MRA blogs, including Angry Harry, MRA forums, and some of the comments on your own videos? Type in "MRA forum" right now and click on the first link that comes up. You'll see pictures of men spanking naked women and pictures of boots with the caption "These are for kicking feminists in the cunt." Again, what should I think?

  42. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 12:33 AM
    Gravatar
    "Panjak was complaining that our law enforcement was responsible for preventing violence against women (and men)"

    I said no such thing. If you really have an open mind.. read through it again. Also I made no hateful comments like "kicking feminists" and I most certainly do not appreciate emotional outbursts for whatever crap you dealt with.. if I did not do it, its not my problem. Either control your anger and learn to talk like a civilized person (starting with writing my name correctly) or .. well you will fit the stereotype. Again, I didn't make the stereotype and so it is not my fault. Sorry you will be mocked by people like me, some what.

    And yes, not knowing about S&W and JMB (even H&K, FN) is not a good excuse is it? If you are serious about preventing violence against women, those are the first people you would go to. Thus pointing out the fact that all the feminist education you have received thus far is not really about preventing violence against women. It is about... misandry, characterized and demonstrated by your feeling of angst against anyone who you think is male.
    If it makes you feel any better - like Mark, I am not an MRA either. I understand where they come from and I also try to understand where feminists come from - but from understanding of things beyond just gender politics, like economics and political theory, there is a whole lot you can learn from me, Mark and others - that will ACTUALLY help prevent violence against women. Unfortunately, it will require a whole lot of patience and compassion towards other human beings, understanding things, reasoning them out and logically arguing them out and most of all NOT GETTING ANGRY.
    Take it or leave it..
  43. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 1:00 AM
    Gravatar
    "People who rape should carry the responsibility"

    Ms. Santa Klaus, (I can misspell your name one more time as you misspelled mine twice)

    This world is not a controlled experiment. Its not utopia. There are good and bad people. You want help against bad people from good people.. ask for it, nicely. Getting angry at good people is going to get you nowhere in fighting bad people. I would argue that is precisely what feminists want.. feeds their mill of oppression politics.
  44. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 1:04 AM
    Gravatar
    Argh.. forgot the punchline

    "People who rape should carry the responsibility"

    If I/we/anyone could "make them" carry the responsibility, wouldn't it be a better idea to "make them" to not rape?
  45. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/14/2010 1:29 AM
    Gravatar
    "Arguseyes, what would you want me to think upon reading MRA blogs, including Angry Harry, MRA forums, and some of the comments on your own videos? Type in "MRA forum" right now and click on the first link that comes up. You'll see pictures of men spanking naked women and pictures of boots with the caption "These are for kicking feminists in the cunt." Again, what should I think?"

    Stop basing your views on internet comments and forum posts. You could enforce any view that way. Instead, base your assessement on the normative leaders of the movement. Do you see me moan about feminist youtube comments all day? I could quite easily do so.
  46. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 1:48 AM
    Gravatar
    I shouldn't base my views on MRA forum posts?
  47. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 1:51 AM
    Gravatar
    It seems you want everything bad to not reflect the official views of MRAs.
  48. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 2:23 AM
    Gravatar
    Okay, here we go..

    MRAs are EVIL! They wear sandals with dress pants!

    MRAs are EVIL! They eat broccoli!

    MRAs are EVIL! They eat babies!

    Did anything change for you miss? It might be time to honestly check with yourself - if you really want to hear from anyone but yourself. In case you haven't noticed MRAs are not really into caring - how you feel about them.

    It is amazing that feminists and women generally do not understand what an opportunity they are given.. at least by men who have not run out of patience..YET! Angry harry is one of those men, I think. He is tired of talking rationally with folks like Ms. Karas here. A human being has limited patience and I do not blame him for using the fiery rhetoric that he uses.

    I blame folks like Ms. Karas who are dishonest about their will to keep an open mind. Closed mind results in closed dialogue.
  49. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 7:09 AM
    Gravatar
    That's it! Again, taking everything I say out of context! I merely asked, "what should I think"? I do not think, for example, that nice, rational MRAs like ArgusEyes and you (yes, you) are anything but nice or rational. But really! I've never been on an MRA blog or heard an MRA post on the internet that wasn't about how women run around crying false rape (50% apparently), or touting the 50/50 domestic violence statistic, or bleating about how the 'feminist indoctrination' is transforming our boys into delinquent drop outs, or about how feminists have destroyed the family, or about how "AmeriSkanks suck!" etc, etc, and other general snide sexism or outright misogyny. Some of the normative leaders are no exceptions. Please note, I said SOME. Not all. SOME. I'm tired of being accused of every evil under the sun by Pankaj here. And "Ms. Santa Klaus"? Did you go to the Jack Black school of name calling?
  50. Posted by: Noobius on 2/14/2010 7:34 AM
    Gravatar
    First of all Sophia, you completely ignored the points I made, and the question I asked, but ok. Here we go:

    "I've never been on an MRA blog or heard an MRA post on the internet that wasn't about how women run around crying false rape (50% apparently), or touting the 50/50 domestic violence statistic, or bleating about how the 'feminist indoctrination' is transforming our boys into delinquent drop outs, or about how feminists have destroyed the family, or about how "AmeriSkanks suck!" etc, etc, and other general snide sexism or outright misogyny. "

    So have actually read the sources for those claims? For instance the 50% false rape statistic: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com
    You might need to spend some time reading all of it, but if the guys who run that site seem like misogynists, then you have indeed made up your mind beforehand, and most certainly are a feminist. No rational person would think they hate women.
    The 50/50 domestic violence statistic comes from several studies. Here are some resources: http://www.dvmen.org/ and more to the point http://www.dvmen.org/dv-30.htm#pgfId-1104566

    I don't know about feminist indoctrination and destroying the family, because I don't live in the West, but considering what I've read from feminists it sounds about right.

    As a general tip, if you want to have a discussion about something, try not to shift the goal posts at every post. Also if you want to claim that you aren't a feminist, don't ask questions like "So, if it were up to you, how would you decide to solve some of the problems that women face?". Like it was mentioned above, women aren't the only ones who face problems. If you want to be about equality, ask how can we fix society's problems (i.e. everyone's problems).
  51. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 2/14/2010 9:27 AM
    Gravatar
    "Well women do experience 'extra victimhood' in rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sexual abuse. Are you denying this? ..."

    Are you seriously suggesting that if a woman experiences rape, its worse for her than if a man experiences the same thing ? because that is what I'm concluding from your sentence.

    Or, again, are you talking about numbers in general ? Do women have 'extra victimhood' because more women get raped than men ?
    If thats the case, then my answer is no. A particalur gender does not get to claim special treatement because more of them get raped than the other gender. Every case should be handled regardless of the gender of the victim.
  52. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 4:52 PM
    Gravatar
    "I merely asked, "what should I think"? "

    Are you serious? You want men/MRAs to tell you what to think?! Doesn't that kind of thing get you expelled from the feminist collective?

    "I do not think, for example, that nice, rational MRAs like ArgusEyes and you (yes, you) are anything but nice or rational."
    Thank you..

    "I've never been on an MRA blog or heard an MRA post on the internet that wasn't about..."
    Which blogs have you been reading? I could request them to write about kittens and flowers for a change, if you like. But that is beside the point. On this blog post - as I understand it - you had 15 questions for Arguseyes - and he did answer you, and quite civil language. What else did you expect? That folks here will start verbally attacking MRAs that make their own claims based on their research? If you want to argue figures.. please go argue with folks who present those figures. There exist research monkeys (that's not a derogatory term ..) that will argue statistics till the cows come home (that is not a derogatory term/phrase either).

    "I'm tired of being accused of every evil under the sun by Pankaj here."
    Is butchering my name and YOU accusing me (ah.. the circling accusations! Just read what you wrote!) of being a violent - "every evil under the sun"? Ms. Karas maybe you do not realize that is not the case - or just maybe you are addicted to hyperbole. Its comical, actually, considering the evils that pervade this world. On the other hand, feminists never tire of blaming "men" (not specific individuals or men) for literally every evil under the sun - which is again quite ironic, but Ms. Karas should sympathize with those MRAs who use phrases and slogans like "Ameriskanks suck!"... they too are tired and would rather flame than argue.
    Mirrors you nicely, doesn't it?!

    And yes I did go to Jack Black school of name calling..or at least my diploma says so.
  53. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 4:52 PM
    Gravatar
    "I merely asked, "what should I think"? "

    Are you serious? You want men/MRAs to tell you what to think?! Doesn't that kind of thing get you expelled from the feminist collective?

    "I do not think, for example, that nice, rational MRAs like ArgusEyes and you (yes, you) are anything but nice or rational."
    Thank you..

    "I've never been on an MRA blog or heard an MRA post on the internet that wasn't about..."
    Which blogs have you been reading? I could request them to write about kittens and flowers for a change, if you like. But that is beside the point. On this blog post - as I understand it - you had 15 questions for Arguseyes - and he did answer you, and quite civil language. What else did you expect? That folks here will start verbally attacking MRAs that make their own claims based on their research? If you want to argue figures.. please go argue with folks who present those figures. There exist research monkeys (that's not a derogatory term ..) that will argue statistics till the cows come home (that is not a derogatory term/phrase either).

    "I'm tired of being accused of every evil under the sun by Pankaj here."
    Is butchering my name and YOU accusing me (ah.. the circling accusations! Just read what you wrote!) of being a violent - "every evil under the sun"? Ms. Karas maybe you do not realize that is not the case - or just maybe you are addicted to hyperbole. Its comical, actually, considering the evils that pervade this world. On the other hand, feminists never tire of blaming "men" (not specific individuals or men) for literally every evil under the sun - which is again quite ironic, but Ms. Karas should sympathize with those MRAs who use phrases and slogans like "Ameriskanks suck!"... they too are tired and would rather flame than argue.
    Mirrors you nicely, doesn't it?!

    And yes I did go to Jack Black school of name calling..or at least my diploma says so.
  54. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 6:17 PM
    Gravatar
    Noobius, the study presupposes that 'recanting' is tantamount to 'false'. The people who experience rape and sexual assault are extremely timid about reporting to authorities, I know, I was there. I personally recanted twice, once when my dad was doing certain things. I tried to tell my mom, and she didn't want to believe me, so I recanted instead and told her I must have been dreaming everything. Another time I recanted was when I was taking violin lessons at a guy's house. I was playing the violin and he was instructing me, and I noticed after several minutes of playing that he was very surreptitiously taking cell phone pictures of me. Again, I told my mom and she was angry, and so I recanted because I was afraid of formally accusing him.

    Pankaj, butchering your name! What the heck kind of name is 'Pankaj' anyway! Sorry if I offended your (Indian?) ethnicity, but come on! And I was never flaming, but since you gave me the idea: shut up! shut up! shut up!
  55. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 6:23 PM
    Gravatar
    "I merely asked, "what should I think"? "

    "Are you serious? You want men/MRAs to tell you what to think?! Doesn't that kind of thing get you expelled from the feminist collective?"

    The question was rhetorical, genius!
  56. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 7:27 PM
    Gravatar
    "The question was rhetorical, genius!"

    Indeed it was.. it shows how blind and stupid feminists really are. They cannot live beyond their fantasy land, where a decent piece of advice is "telling you what to think" if it comes from anyone not female. (sexist? Nah!)

    As for your anecdotal incident.. bravo on being an attention "empowered feminist"? You were afraid because your mom was angry, which means you did not want your mom to be angry - which means you really just wanted your mom to know about something but not do anything about it.

    Exactly like you want men to know about the crime situation, but you don't really want them to do anything about it or do something about it yourself. Its really a giant pity party for the girl that was "afraid".
  57. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 8:32 PM
    Gravatar
    "You were afraid because your mom was angry, which means you did not want your mom to be angry - which means you really just wanted your mom to know about something but not do anything about it. "

    And how do you know what I wanted? Spare me the armchair Freud. Yes, I wanted something to be done about it, but I was afraid! I was fourteen, for fuck's sake!

    "Exactly like you want men to know about the crime situation, but you don't really want them to do anything about it or do something about it yourself. Its really a giant pity party for the girl that was "afraid"."

    How many times do I have to say this? Violence against women was not the original point of my post. I talked about personal anecdotes as a RESPONSE to something Noobius said. And thank you for exemplifying MRA's blaming the victim sexist wacko mentality. Why do you hate the English language so much that you misunderstand EVERYTHING I SAY. Take some crayons, go to a corner, and stop bothering me, but not before you look up 'apology' in the dictionary.
  58. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 8:49 PM
    Gravatar
    "I wanted something to be done about it, but I was afraid! I was fourteen, for fuck's sake!"

    Yes, that explains why you told your mom.. good for you, and then you recanted. Yep that explains it all. Indeed there are victims of crime who are really afraid, and who really do not report the crime or recant AFTER receiving threats from the offender - which is understandable, but then like everyone sane, we live in the real world. I save my sympathy for those REAL victims. And 14 is 14.. its not an excuse to imagine yourself to be a "victim" of EVERYTHING!

    "thank you for exemplifying MRA's blaming the victim sexist wacko mentality."
    There was no victim! Taking pictures of you is not really a crime nor is it a violation of privacy! The degree to which everything is a victimization is amazing. I am not misunderstanding anything, maybe I am not understanding what you are not saying.
  59. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 2/14/2010 8:50 PM
    Gravatar
    Ugh, so in the end you're just another one of those internet feminists who claims that she too has been molested in the past.

    Well boohoo for you. You have to understand that this is an anonymous internet comment section and your claim to victimhood is nothing but a pitiful cry for attention and an appeal to emotion. Or in other words: even more dishonest debating on your part.

    None of us have any way of confirming that what you say is true, so if you realy wanted to have an honest conversation you shouldn't have brought it up.
    We're perfectly in the right to dismiss it as the tripe that it is, making your claim that we are 'blaming the victim' all the more ridiculous, and exposing you for the little fembot that you realy are.
  60. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 9:06 PM
    Gravatar
    No, actually my anecdotes were a response to Noobius, whose link was predicated on the fact that 'recanting' means 'false'. And based on your responses, I'm more than disgusted and am now sure that MRAs are very dangerous. Believe me or not, I really don't care.
  61. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 9:06 PM
    Gravatar
    "but I was afraid!"

    It is amazing how others should give you a free pass whenever you are afraid. Its probably something feminists just don't get whether they are 14 or 40.

    If there is a problem, solve it yourself or let people solve it for you. If there is none and you cried "wolf!", people are going to hold you responsible for what you tried to pull. Sadly your mom let you off easy, which probably was a huge mistake just as big as it would have been had she ignored your complaint altogether. Sadly there are people who wrongly ignore such complaints, facilitating real victimization and thanks to folks like you they will justify their behavior too.
  62. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 9:17 PM
    Gravatar
    "MRAs are very dangerous"

    Who isn't?
  63. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 9:24 PM
    Gravatar
    I cried 'wolf' and imagined it all? Are you sick? Arguseyes, what more is there to say?
  64. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 9:28 PM
    Gravatar
    All the point of my post was, ALL IT WAS, was to demsontrate that 'recanting' does necessarily mean 'false'.
  65. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 9:48 PM
    Gravatar
    You guys are the ones who brought up "victim complex". Not me!
  66. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 10:06 PM
    Gravatar
    "I cried 'wolf' and imagined it all?"

    Don't know and cannot care anymore than I can for all the other things that have similar absence of hard evidence e.g. UFOs, God, unicorns etc.
  67. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 10:13 PM
    Gravatar
    Note to all women.. do not, repeat, DO NOT even remotely mention anything involving your personal experiences of sexual ANYTHING, as MRAs will ridicule you, shame you, dismiss you, and try in ANY WAY POSSIBLE to make the situation all your own fault.
  68. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 10:22 PM
    Gravatar
    Speaking of Freud..

    "demsontrate that 'recanting' does necessarily mean 'false'. "

    Ms. Karas, Say, for argument sake - I concede and I already do - that "recanting" does not necessarily means "false" what will that prove?

    Only that 50% is an inflated figure.. correct?
    Have the feminists ever inflated figures? Yes, they have - can you say "SuperBowl myth" - even the "1 in 4", "1 in 2" myth? Still it means nothing other than research monkeys on both sides are not good at producing accurate figures. I am not much for hysteria on any side.. so I don't have to defend either side. But proving something is inaccurate does not mean that MRAs don't have a point when they talk of false rape allegations, nor are they anymore guilty of dishonesty than your garden variety feminist when they talk of wage gap, DV or even rape statistics.

    If as a feminists or as a woman you want to point fingers at MRAs who spout faulty figures.. I want to see what you do to feminists and even women who do not identify themselves as feminists! Ironic case is that of the false rape accuser, no matter how rare she is, she is 100% wrong in her "data" and her data causes real harm to a real live person.
  69. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 10:27 PM
    Gravatar
    I'm against all inflated/inaccurate statistics, feminist or otherwise. But inflating false rape allegation stats is extremely dangerous and very harmful to people whose lives have already been ruined by rape or sexual assault.
  70. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 10:30 PM
    Gravatar
    "But inflating false rape allegation stats is extremely dangerous and very harmful to people whose lives have already been ruined by rape or sexual assault."

    And in the same way, inflating rape or sexual assault numbers is similarly extremely dangerous and very harmful to those falsely accused of rape. What else is new?
  71. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 10:32 PM
    Gravatar
    I find it a bit hard to believe that a woman will premeditate false rape and undergo an intrusive four-hour rape exam, answer interview questions for another hour, and fill out a report specifying dates and times just because "she didn't like it". Pressing charges is an extremely stressful and daunting experience.
  72. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 10:33 PM
    Gravatar
    "And in the same way, inflating rape or sexual assault numbers is similarly extremely dangerous and very harmful to those falsely accused of rape. What else is new?"

    That's why I just said I was against it.
  73. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 10:39 PM
    Gravatar
    So? Feminists inflate rape numbers, MRAs inflate false rape allegation numbers. Is that the moral of your story?

    Lets review what you said about me
    "Are you angry you have to accountable for the violence you cause?"
    False accusation made by you against me! Its not about rape, but is a broader category "violence".

    Get it? That false accuser is YOU!
  74. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 10:50 PM
    Gravatar
    Pankaj, read your own post again about how "womyn were truly the aristocrats for whom we all must quit our day jobs to slavishly provide for and protect" and then read my post again that explained the term "you" meant violence that some men cause. Get it? How "you" can mean "you" in general, or "you" theoretically? Finally, stop pointing a shaking finger at me and accusing me of things I never said.
  75. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 10:52 PM
    Gravatar
    "I find it a bit hard to believe that a woman will ..."

    That is fine for a person who has never come across a woman who has falsely accused someone of rape or anything else for that matter! But given that there are a number of examples where they have, should have helped you reform your belief.

    Say, if you tell me there are unicorns, I probably will not believe - or like you say "find it a bit hard to believe". But if you show me a video, some zoology expert confirming it etc. I will have to concede that unicorns exist!
    So you have to introspect why is it hard for you to believe that women can falsely accuse someone of rape, given that you already know of examples! Could it be because you think women are better than men, that they will not resort to lying to achieve their goals? Heck young girls - as young as 15 - have alleged gang rape to avoid punishment from parents for getting home late.

    Wake up and look around - women aren't angels and men aren't devils.
  76. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 11:06 PM
    Gravatar
    I never asserted it NEVER happened; I'm quite aware it DOES happen. Do MRA statistics of 50% accurately reflect the number, is my point.

    "Wake up and look around - women aren't angels and men aren't devils."

    Again, stop accusing me of weird abstractions. Stop it! Yes, you!
  77. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 11:08 PM
    Gravatar
    "that explained the term "you" meant violence that some men cause. "

    If I say "You raped me", will that mean "some women/men raped me"? Maybe you are the queen of English and words mean anything what you want them to mean, but be aware that the figure-inflaters can also use the same defense.. "50% really means 2%".

    It will help you a whole lot more to first admit that you did wrong by accusing me of violence and then figure out why it was so convenient for you to accuse me, even without trying. Maybe you will figure out why it is easy for women to accuse men of rape, which you say is something you find hard to believe.

    Understand that feminism is a collectivist ideology where people are lumped together good and bad women against good and bad men. Then they cultivate "US vs Them" attitude in young girls, making them gender warriors fighting against men and anyone who sides with them. MRAs are especially vilified because they are fighting for the "others".
  78. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 11:15 PM
    Gravatar
    "It will help you a whole lot more to first admit that you did wrong by accusing me of violence and then figure out why it was so convenient for you to accuse me, even without trying."

    I would gladly if I did, but I didn't. No, I didn't! (no.. I didn't)

    "Understand that feminism is a collectivist ideology where people are lumped together good and bad women against good and bad men. Then they cultivate "US vs Them" attitude in young girls, making them gender warriors fighting against men and anyone who sides with them"

    What? I've taken Women's Studies and visited feminist websites and the 'gender studies' discussion section on Yahoo. My experience has been (especially professors teaching women's studies) is that they are anything but militant and open to discussion. It's MRAs that erect this adversarial 'gender war' mentality. Death to feminists! is the rally that's usually intoned.

  79. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 11:17 PM
    Gravatar
    "Maybe you will figure out why it is easy for women to accuse men of rape, which you say is something you find hard to believe."

    No, it's not easy. You need evidence. And courage to come forward.
  80. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 11:20 PM
    Gravatar
    "I never asserted it NEVER happened; I'm quite aware it DOES happen"

    And you expect MRAs to report the right figures..

    Given that feminists have reported inflated figures for decades, why should MRAs not imitate them? After all feminists played dirty, gave a damn about the rights of innocent men.. and succeeded at their task. Sounds like a vile, but winning strategy. Why should MRAs not employ it?

    Just because they are fighting for men and feminists were fighting for women? If you want to convince MRAs to give up on a proven winning technique.. you should have something better for them. Otherwise you are just asking them to give up on men as far as they are concerned.

    Say what should they do? Talk cogently and try to convince women who are already hopped up on feminist theories and statistics to give up bad feminist statistics? As you can see here, how well it goes. Maybe it works.. prove me wrong - tell me which false feminist statistic have you given up based on all this argument here.
  81. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 11:27 PM
    Gravatar
    "My experience has been (especially professors teaching women's studies) is that they are anything but militant and open to discussion"

    Names and email addresses please. Let's see how open they are to discussion. Let's invite them here and see how many show up to argue with GOOD statistics and DO NOT USE bad stats.

    LOL! I was not born yesterday, but feel free to prove me wrong.

    You see the thing is - you can go to any extremist hate group and be open for discussion as long as all discussion is inline with the hate ideology. But all that still does not prove that they are open to discussion. What would is how they treat dissident feminists. See how feminists have treated Daphne Patai, Cathy Young and Wendy McElroy. Like I said, I wasn't born yesterday and most MRAs are older than me.
  82. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 11:38 PM
    Gravatar
    "Talk cogently and try to convince women who are already hopped up on feminist theories and statistics to give up bad feminist statistics? As you can see here, how well it goes. Maybe it works.. prove me wrong - tell me which false feminist statistic have you given up based on all this argument here"

    Which ones are good and which ones are bad? Personally I don't believe the wage gap is the result of sexism.

    "Sounds like a vile, but winning strategy. Why should MRAs not employ it?"

    So you're saying that MRAs are all dishonest? Seriously? Arguseyes, are you listening?
  83. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 11:38 PM
    Gravatar
    "Death to feminists"? That's another allegation I will need evidence for.
  84. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 11:40 PM
    Gravatar
    And what about all the dissident men who are called "pussy-whipped" and "manginas"?
  85. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/14/2010 11:46 PM
    Gravatar
    "Names and email addresses please. Let's see how open they are to discussion."

    Take a women's studies class or else go to the places I described. In WS, we also talked about rape of men (in prison), gay rights, and civil rights.
  86. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/14/2010 11:57 PM
    Gravatar
    Avoiding giving names? Maybe you forgot their names?
  87. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/15/2010 12:01 AM
    Gravatar
    Sorry, not taking the bait. And I'm not arguing anymore on Valentine's Day. Go do something else.
  88. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/15/2010 12:32 AM
    Gravatar
    "not taking the bait"

    Its a bait? Cannot expose those feminist liars to real debate, can we? There is not one name that you gave yet! I am surprised.

    I kinda expected you to give couple of names that would be of decent people who you think were actually balanced and academically sound. Sad to see that you know there is not one (NOT ONE!) who can even be considered balanced - EVEN BY YOU!

    That is enough evidence to reconfirm what I already believe about women's studies - that it is a field - full of man-haters, racists and heterophobes. FYI, I have been to WS.. so its not really that surprising.

    Happy Rape day.. like feminists call it.
  89. Posted by: Noobius on 2/15/2010 5:10 AM
    Gravatar
    "Noobius, the study presupposes that 'recanting' is tantamount to 'false'."

    Actually, the Kanin study determines false to be false when the accuser recants, there is physical evidence to suggest a rape did not occur, and the recant was investigated by a 3 person panel to determine if it was made under duress. There is another study (forgot the name of the authors, might be Strauss) that has even stricter rules. Between these two studies it would appear a false rape report incidence of between 35% and 50% (or something to that effect).

    "Violence against women was not the original point of my post. "

    Yes, your original question was what should MRA's do to solve women's problems. I answered that above.


    "I find it a bit hard to believe that a woman will premeditate false rape and undergo an intrusive four-hour rape exam, answer interview questions for another hour, and fill out a report specifying dates and times just because "she didn't like it". Pressing charges is an extremely stressful and daunting experience."

    You should read that link I gave you and see to what extremes women are capable of going to, and for what petty reasons they do just that. Here's the link again in case you missed it: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com

    "And what about all the dissident men who are called "pussy-whipped" and "manginas"?"

    Well it's hard to call them anything else when they call us women haters and (possible) rapists. I guess a better term, as suggested by fidelbogen, would be collaborationists.
  90. Posted by: Sophia Karas on 2/15/2010 6:24 AM
    Gravatar
    "That is enough evidence to reconfirm what I already believe about women's studies - that it is a field - full of man-haters, racists and heterophobes."

    I'd talk with you further but I don't need any more proof of how deranged and stupid you are.
  91. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 2/15/2010 7:04 AM
    Gravatar
    Yes, sure. Keep flinging about accusations. But don't bother answering actual points made.

    Noobius just answered your claim that the study he linked considered any recanted claim as false. Which in turn validades my assertion that you tried to use personal experience as proof of your bs claim.

    You also conveniently ignored my two responses that both answered your few direct questions, and explained why they are loaded and dishonest questions.

    All you've managed to do in the last few hours is scream at Pankaj that all MRA's are dangerous lunatics, and he screams the same thing right back about feminists. You could have chosen to ignore his rantings and answer actual points made. Why don't you try it for a change.
  92. Posted by: Oekedulleke on 2/15/2010 7:55 AM
    Gravatar
    "No, actually my anecdotes were a response to Noobius, whose link was predicated on the fact that 'recanting' means 'false'. And based on your responses, I'm more than disgusted and am now sure that MRAs are very dangerous. Believe me or not, I really don't care."

    Even without Noobius's response above, I need to point out that your personal anecdote is not a valid argument for your premise that the study is based on 'recanting = false'. To prove that you would need to show where the studies methodology makes that assumption.

    At best your response suggests that some women recant even when an actual rape or molestation happened. Something I do not disagree with, but it doesn't have any bearing on the discussion.

    Perhaps you would also indulge me and explain how my response makes MRA's disgusting and dangerous ?
  93. Posted by: Ray on 2/15/2010 5:04 PM
    Gravatar
    My God, Argus, 92 comments has to be a record. I first took it to be perhaps your blog was getting more popular but then I found it to be mostly the same people having long-winded arguments. A shame, this blog deserves more exposure.
  94. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 2/16/2010 7:28 AM
    Gravatar
    "My God, Argus, 92 comments has to be a record. I first took it to be perhaps your blog was getting more popular but then I found it to be mostly the same people having long-winded arguments. A shame, this blog deserves more exposure."

    I know, cool huh? Alas I am not that popular, yet.
  95. Posted by: Mith on 2/18/2010 6:41 PM
    Gravatar
    Wow, has this turned into a shit fest.

    Alright, let's stop the crap. Spitting flames, while impressive, doesn't exactly help put out the fire. As far as Sophia's sexual harrasment problems, we don't know enough of the situation thus far to determine if she was overreating or not. Might her father have accidently done something that offended her and she took it the wrong way? Maybe. Or he could have well been doing something that was flat out wrong. We don't know unless we're told what happened.

    Same thing with the pictures. Not nearly enough detail on Miss Sophia's part for us to determine what happened either way. I know some of you here are better than this; you need more information than just something as vague as "he took pictures" and "he touched me" to determine what was going on.

    So before we accuse Sophia of overreacting, we need more information. Flaming her and accusing her of being crazy is just going to piss her off.

    That aside Sophia, you do need to give us a bit more information. Granted, that might be rather personal, but you need to tell us what happened. Ie, when the tutor took pictures, did you ask him what he ws doing? Were you offended at the time? Did you ask him to stop? What was he taking pictures of? You playing the violin? How old was he?

    I don't want to touch on the instance with your father, as that seems rather more personal, but if you are going to give more information on that, then think on those same questions. Remember that just because you were offended, does not mean that this was intentional.



    "I did not say one in four were raped. Please look at the statistics I listed again."

    Attempt of rape, or such things. Please tell me that you weren't trying to use technicalities to avoid this.

    "Violence men in general cause! That's it! I'm tired of everything I say being taken completely and utterly out of context!"

    Well, if that isn't what you were trying to say, then I apologize.

    "Well high schools have already began implementing this policy, only to be shot down with accusations of the "feminist indoctrination", rather on par with the "Obama socialist indoctrination"."

    Well, that depends what the course entails. Obviously if it says women who were gropped by their boyfriends and offended were assaulted or that all women will probably be raped by their boyfriends is not going to go well with anyone.

    "No, you just referred to three isolated incidents."

    Isolated? You're not going to mantain that these are like, the only women on male violence there is, do you?

    "Please provide some statistics or something, and then compare those to statistics relevant to women. You're asserting that rape and sexual assault are just as prevalent and just as much as a threat to men. Please demonstrate this."

    I would encourage you to read this:

    http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/pdfs/invisib.pdf

    Look for page 28, where it goes into women causing sexual abuse.

    "And don't call me dear, ok?"

    ...Is that offensive?

    "In the sense that fear oppresses one, then yes. Women have to fear things that men don't have to fear AS MUCH."

    I refer you to the paper I just linked to; you're dead wrong. And again, when you suggest that someone is oppressed and is using fear, that suggests that someone is doing it. By making it out to be a female problem, you seem to me, to be suggesting that men should be responsible.

    And as far as you being angry and wanting to win (I'm trying to locate all your responses, but 90+ posts is making that a bit difficult, so forgive me), it's not always an obvious thing. And you may be right that you have no intentions of winning. But I would urge you to rethink it and calm down before each response.

    I would also like to address the MRA thing; I'm not MRA nor do I think many people here are. I personally don't try to attach myself to groups. I'm not a liberal, right, or left. I'm not MRA or feminist. I'm at best, a Zelda fan, a Trekkie, a writer, religious, and a gamer.

    No more, no less.
  96. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/18/2010 8:11 PM
    Gravatar
    Forget it..

    The whole objective of this exercise was to prove that this person was lying from the start - had no interest in understanding Argus or anyone else for that matter.

    Here is what I found very effective at flushing out pretend "open-minds" - ask the person to write down conditions/evidence/objectives (non-negative ones only) that if proven valid, they will change their mind to your position.

    Closed minded folks will simply not accept this challenge. Open minded folks will at least try to come up with an honest list of acceptable things.
  97. Posted by: Mith on 2/19/2010 3:48 AM
    Gravatar
    "Forget it..

    The whole objective of this exercise was to prove that this person was lying from the start - had no interest in understanding Argus or anyone else for that matter."

    That's not a fair claim. She is certainly coming in with a certain frame of mind, perhaps a very biased one, but I wouldn't say she was absolutely going out of her way just to cause trouble. That sort of paranoid thinking something we don't want to be a part of. Everyone should get a fair shake here and thus far I don't think she's shown herself to be outright against Argus.

    "Here is what I found very effective at flushing out pretend "open-minds" - ask the person to write down conditions/evidence/objectives (non-negative ones only) that if proven valid, they will change their mind to your position.

    Closed minded folks will simply not accept this challenge. Open minded folks will at least try to come up with an honest list of acceptable things."

    Easier said than done. Especially when you're in a five on one debate with people constantly picking apart your argument and starting new ones. We have to respond to one or two posts at the most. She has to respond to at least ten.

    Do I agree with her? No. But harping on her and trying to trap her in a lie, be it good intentions or not, is not going to change her mind nor does it represent the site as a place full of open minded people, just us bullying others with superior skill in debating capabilities.

    She clearly isn't stupid and has some degree of skill in writing, enough so that she's willing to challenge me on my understanding, but she's clearly a novice at debating and that takes time to get used to.

    And really, she isn't bad. She clearly had a rather set mind when she came into this, but she probably chose to Email Argus because he's one of the better people at this than others. You want bad? Try people who delibertly take things out of context and ignore the author's explination when said thing is taken into question, using a technicality to try and win. Or people who delibertly misinterpret information and quotes in such twisted ways that your head will fall off. Or people who constantly flame bait others to try and get them to flip out, but then hide behind their moderator buddy without so much as an infraction. I've been ganged up before by rather rabid debators more experienced before. And unlike the unintentional brawl here, they were vicious and used pack methods to try and tear new debators a new one. They freely flamed and used one source to override all others, no matter how flawed it was because it suited them.

    Now, we aren't like that here. But what's happened is similar. Five, pro debators have essentially torn apart a newb's argument (that's not insulting Sophia, it would be if it was n00b). I know it wasn't intentional, but that sort of thing builds up, makes people angry, and then they do stupid things.

    I've been ganged up numerous times before in my debate--with posts so large that the longest one here would be considered small to moderate at best. So large that every five pages I'd have to go essay style just to try and keep it from getting too large to handle.

    No one here is a troll, but there have been numerous troll-like behavior that happens in heated debates, such as flaiming and possibly flame baiting. I suggest everyone cools off and let Sophia catch her breath. Aggressive debating is not going to help anyone, no matter which side is actually right or not.

    Sophia, I suggest you restate your position (don't bother with the responses) and address any issues (not people) that you contend. Everyone else, I suggest we try small, managable responses so she isn't overwhelmed. If it keeps going downhill, I suggest we just assign subjects to each of us here and just respond to that, that way information isn't repeated.
  98. Posted by: Mith on 2/19/2010 4:26 AM
    Gravatar
    Correction on her responding to 'at least ten', I meant to say 3-5.
  99. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/19/2010 5:36 PM
    Gravatar
    "She has to respond to at least ten."
    Isn't it funny that she does not respond to any single matter of substance in any of the posts. I could understand missing a few posts here and there, missing an argument here or there - but take a look at the discussion - not responding to anything concrete with anything substantial is a pattern here.

    Here is the SOP for these types of folks -
    1. make an accusation.
    2. pretend to have an open mind to debate over it
    3. get angry over anything anyone has said
    4. when the opposition responds in kind - claim victim hood
    5. Get hysterical
    6. Leave - thus getting the good side divided over what was the best approach to debate such a person.

    It is nice of Argus to continue being patient with such folks - but unless you want a training in stepping on eggshells and going nowhere - its not going to get you anything worthwhile. Like I have said before - nothing you say can change her mind, because regardless of what you say, how patiently and logically you argue - there is a fundamental flaw in you that will never allow her to accept anything you say just because you argued it properly. Had you been a female you might have had some chance. Had you been a man who defers to her female sense of victimhood, you could convince of some peripheral things.

    Because they are genuinely not interested in understanding the other side, they will not for one moment their position even though they disagree with their compatriots on issues. Like with Ms. Klaus here will concede "Personally I don't believe the wage gap is the result of sexism." But will not go one step beyond that and try to figure out why feminists have been pushing it for so long.

    You see, if almost all feminists do something wrong FOR YEARS! - it must be a honest mistake. If some MRAs do something wrong - its because they are ALL stone evil!

    But then again hope springs eternal. Hopefully you eventually will find that one feminist/female who will conceded the logic behind your point WITHOUT having a close male relative victimized by the system. That is what it usually takes for women to see the light - someone close to them has to get into trouble and clearly enough to see that it was not his fault. I hope I am wrong about that - but that has been the experience thus far.
  100. Posted by: Mith on 2/19/2010 8:26 PM
    Gravatar
    "Here is the SOP for these types of folks -
    1. make an accusation.
    2. pretend to have an open mind to debate over it
    3. get angry over anything anyone has said
    4. when the opposition responds in kind - claim victim hood
    5. Get hysterical
    6. Leave - thus getting the good side divided over what was the best approach to debate such a person."

    Let's calm down a bit. I never said she had a good argument or that she was right--nor am I saying anyone else here was in the wrong--save for maybe the false victim claim, as we don't know enough about the incident to render a judgement. If it does prove to be petty or mostly imagined, I would aggree, but as it is, we don't know and we need more information.

    "It is nice of Argus to continue being patient with such folks - but unless you want a training in stepping on eggshells and going nowhere - its not going to get you anything worthwhile. Like I have said before - nothing you say can change her mind, because regardless of what you say, how patiently and logically you argue - there is a fundamental flaw in you that will never allow her to accept anything you say just because you argued it properly. Had you been a female you might have had some chance. Had you been a man who defers to her female sense of victimhood, you could convince of some peripheral things."

    Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm fine with lamblasting trolls--I just did one last night (er...morning?). However, she is at least arguing and for the benefit of the doubt, we have to let her give the best argument we can. Shooting down small fish gets us absolutely nowhere.

    Is she doing great in this debate? No. Honestly she's not. But she's sinking like a rock because there's too many people to handle. Five to one is not good odds in a debate.

    "Because they are genuinely not interested in understanding the other side, they will not for one moment their position even though they disagree with their compatriots on issues. Like with Ms. Klaus here will concede "Personally I don't believe the wage gap is the result of sexism." But will not go one step beyond that and try to figure out why feminists have been pushing it for so long."

    You are correct.

    "You see, if almost all feminists do something wrong FOR YEARS! - it must be a honest mistake. If some MRAs do something wrong - its because they are ALL stone evil!"

    I agree, but people reason away double standards and I can see why she does it; the perception that all women are potential victims and that men should do something about it because apparently more men cause the problem.

    "But then again hope springs eternal. Hopefully you eventually will find that one feminist/female who will conceded the logic behind your point WITHOUT having a close male relative victimized by the system. That is what it usually takes for women to see the light - someone close to them has to get into trouble and clearly enough to see that it was not his fault. I hope I am wrong about that - but that has been the experience thus far."

    Preaching to the choir.
  101. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/19/2010 9:05 PM
    Gravatar
    I think I made a case that the argument that she was presenting "recant" does not mean "false" - even if conceded in some cases (and this is a theoretical and practically true.. i.e. get the gist and dispose of her personal example or evidence related to it), does not mean that "recant" means "not false" either. Point being that you need to delve into the numbers and papers etc. to determine which cases were likely false and which ones were not. Given that there is already a lot of debate over what is rape and what is not - that particular discussion on narrowing down numbers - is theoretically possible, but practically impossible..

    So, rather than get into that, I am only interested in seeing how FRA cases are dealt with. Same goes for rape - I am also just as interested that a rape victim is justly compensated for by the rapist for his/her violation.. which involves identifying and capturing the rapist and deciding just compensation - all of which almost all governments around the world have failed at miserably. Which isn't that surprising to me - they are inept to begin with, and consent isn't a physical entity that leaves physical evidence which makes rape a hard crime to process. I do have a solution to this problem - but no feminists have yet taken me up on it. But that is another topic.

    As an extreme libertarian, I am truly a third party to the whole MRAs vs Feminists. I often get disgusted by MRAs who advocate mandatory DNA testing and other laws legislating the lives of other people, much in the spirit of feminist legislation and hence I would never call myself an MRA. But it wouldn't matter to this person, one bit for one reason and one reason only - she already had decided what she wanted to believe.

    Quite convenient, if you ask me - she came here so she can get something to get hysterical about MRAs and she finally got it and left.
  102. Posted by: Mith on 2/19/2010 9:31 PM
    Gravatar
    "I think I made a case that the argument that she was presenting "recant" does not mean "false" - even if conceded in some cases (and this is a theoretical and practically true.. i.e. get the gist and dispose of her personal example or evidence related to it), does not mean that "recant" means "not false" either. Point being that you need to delve into the numbers and papers etc. to determine which cases were likely false and which ones were not. Given that there is already a lot of debate over what is rape and what is not - that particular discussion on narrowing down numbers - is theoretically possible, but practically impossible.."

    Hmm, a hard point to debate since one can technically be right in her claim. I would point out that just because someone recants however, it does not mean that she's just hiding. Case by case study, but as far as the law and the official record is concerned, I'd agree with you. If you claim that you've recanted, then you claimed you lied or were "mistaken".

    "So, rather than get into that, I am only interested in seeing how FRA cases are dealt with. Same goes for rape - I am also just as interested that a rape victim is justly compensated for by the rapist for his/her violation.. which involves identifying and capturing the rapist and deciding just compensation - all of which almost all governments around the world have failed at miserably. Which isn't that surprising to me - they are inept to begin with, and consent isn't a physical entity that leaves physical evidence which makes rape a hard crime to process. I do have a solution to this problem - but no feminists have yet taken me up on it. But that is another topic."

    Agreed to some extent. Rape in general is a very tricky business.


    "As an extreme libertarian, I am truly a third party to the whole MRAs vs Feminists. I often get disgusted by MRAs who advocate mandatory DNA testing and other laws legislating the lives of other people, much in the spirit of feminist legislation and hence I would never call myself an MRA. But it wouldn't matter to this person, one bit for one reason and one reason only - she already had decided what she wanted to believe."

    Mandatory DNA testing? For what?

    "Quite convenient, if you ask me - she came here so she can get something to get hysterical about MRAs and she finally got it and left."

    But...this isn't an MRA site.
  103. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/19/2010 10:00 PM
    Gravatar
    "But...this isn't an MRA site"

    I Know! That's the whole point. She just used it to confirm her hysterical notions about MRAs!

    Glenn Sacks and his co-activists are calling for Mandatory DNA testing for determining paternity as a bulwark against paternity fraud. I told them its a big mistake. Helping better paternity identification is only contributing to the legitimacy of the idea that a court should decide what parental obligations of any parent are.
  104. Posted by: Mith on 2/20/2010 5:24 AM
    Gravatar
    Not to mention the costs it puts on hospitals and patiants.
  105. Posted by: Pankaj on 2/20/2010 7:05 AM
    Gravatar
    I don't think MRAs are more fiscally conservatives, at least seems like Glenn Sacks and his close associates are not. There are a lot of vile things already funded through hospital and health insurance.. e.g. circumcisions of boy babies. This is quite a touchy issue and is often not discussed on American circles of MRAs - a few to their credit have.
    I even warned the folks there that this particular thing will get passed - not because it will help prevent paternity fraud, but it will allow the state to record a databank of DNA for every single baby that is born. The way I see it - this is far more terrible a solution than the problem it is trying to solve.
  106. Posted by: Gavin on 3/26/2010 6:41 PM
    Gravatar
    Men can be raped too. The assertion that women face "risks that men do not face" is grossly inaccurate. Do men have anal cavities? Yes. Are men just a susceptible to rohypnol, ruffinol, blunt force trauma, etc? Yes. Therefore, men can be raped.

    The fact remains that any given man is 3x more at risk than any given woman at any given time of the day in any given place. Yet there are no services for men. I've had feminist tell me there are, but when asked to cite these sources, they simply say "Well the law protects both men and women." Yes, true, but the law protects women more than men. And women also have shelters, awareness programs, etc. Men have nothing.

    So violence towards men is more damaging and dangerous than violence towards women.

    Until the day I find *one* woman who genuinely takes care on this issue, I will never have any respect for any women, period.
  107. Posted by: TDOM on 4/10/2010 5:08 AM
    Gravatar
    Hi Mark, I found your site a couple days ago and read this post. Even though it's rather old and no and the discussion seems to be over, I couldn't resist it. I had to comment, but my comments grew far to long for your discussion thread. I answered 13 of the 15 questions at my blog. The answers will post in 5 parts, 1 every couple of days for the next week or so. The first will be tomorrow morning. You and your readers are more than welcome to come read my answers and leave comments. I've also linked to you in the Men's Issues section of my blogroll.

    -TDOM
  108. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 4/11/2010 3:28 PM
    Gravatar
    Thanks TDOM. I look forward to reading all of the posts.
  109. Posted by: TDOM on 4/19/2010 6:23 AM
    Gravatar
    Hi Mark,
    The 5th and final post will be up Monday morning. Let me know what you think of my answers.

    -TDOM
  110. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 4/19/2010 8:07 AM
    Gravatar
    Thanks. Better get my reading glasses on.
  111. Posted by: Beth on 5/10/2010 7:04 PM
    Gravatar
    I have to admit to only reading your first answer, I figured seeing as you have a fair amount of misconception there was little point reading the rest if it was based on that definition.

    I am a feminist, I used to hate the word but the more I read the more I realised feminism is a rather complex idea. There are many different groups believing many different things, marxist feminists and radical feminists etc.

    What I believe, and feminists like me could almost be considered humanism, I believe women should have the same rights as men, and that means men should have the same rights as women. Any belief that women have totally overtaken men is a misinformed one, however it is true that masculinity has been displaced and not replaced. That is a fundamental issue which I agree does need focus.
  112. Posted by: menareangrynow on 5/12/2010 10:43 AM
    Gravatar
    @Beth

    "Any belief that women have totally overtaken men is a misinformed one,"

    Actually such a view would be quite informed. On the contrary, women do better in school due to the female-only scholarships, which discriminant against men. Women are 60% of college students according to the National Center for Education Statistics.* In addition to receiving educational opportunities that men are denied, women also enjoy legal immunities that men do not. Take for instance the Selective Service Act which only drafts men, or the Federal Prohibition of Genital Mutilation Act, which only protects female infants from circumcision. Truth be told, women overtaking men due to sexist policies is an empirical fact, and to say otherwise is the ignorant and uninformed belief.

    *-http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/ch_3.asp
  113. Posted by: bob on 5/13/2010 5:24 AM
    Gravatar
    "Actually such a view would be quite informed. On the contrary, women do better in school due to the female-only scholarships, which discriminant against men. Women are 60% of college students according to the National Center for Education Statistics.* In addition to receiving educational opportunities that men are denied, women also enjoy legal immunities that men do not. Take for instance the Selective Service Act which only drafts men, or the Federal Prohibition of Genital Mutilation Act, which only protects female infants from circumcision. Truth be told, women overtaking men due to sexist policies is an empirical fact, and to say otherwise is the ignorant and uninformed belief."

    Women have been denied educational opportunities for so long, what's wrong with female-only scholarships? Did you think about why only men are drafted? What is this circumcision stuff about?
  114. Posted by: menareangrynow on 5/13/2010 11:03 AM
    Gravatar
    @bob

    "Women have been denied educational opportunities for so long, what's wrong with female-only scholarships? Did you think about why only men are drafted? What is this circumcision stuff about?"

    What's wrong with them is that they are blatantly discriminatory, just as they discriminate based on sex, so would white-only scholarships discriminate based on race, or Christian-only scholarships discriminate based on religion. Unless you support discrimination, you should be against such practices.

    In addition, the male-only draft if blatantly discriminatory. It's indefensible. The only reason why it's done is because society doesn't care about the lives of men.

    Lastly, circumcision is an important issue. Besides the incredible amount of biological damage it inflicts, it reveals another area in society where men are discriminated against. Men are not given the same protections from genital mutilation that women receive.
  115. Posted by: bob on 5/13/2010 12:14 PM
    Gravatar
    "What's wrong with them is that they are blatantly discriminatory, just as they discriminate based on sex, so would white-only scholarships discriminate based on race, or Christian-only scholarships discriminate based on religion. Unless you support discrimination, you should be against such practices."

    Are you talking about girl only schools, or schools who are handing out a few scholarships to get more women involved to look better.

    "In addition, the male-only draft if blatantly discriminatory. It's indefensible. The only reason why it's done is because society doesn't care about the lives of men."

    First off, I don't think anybody should be drafted. But, when it comes to men and women, men generaly have a physical advantage. You have to meet certain standards. Standards that the average man can or will more easily be able to meet.

    "Lastly, circumcision is an important issue. Besides the incredible amount of biological damage it inflicts, it reveals another area in society where men are discriminated against. Men are not given the same protections from genital mutilation that women receive."

    I think most of the reason is religious. Do you believe they are doing that for fun? People think that it helps men. People do that to women for a different reason.

  116. Posted by: menareangrynow on 5/14/2010 1:29 AM
    Gravatar
    @bob

    "Are you talking about girl only schools, or schools who are handing out a few scholarships to get more women involved to look better."

    No, I'm talking about federal student aid; but, schools who discriminate based on gender, themselves, with their own programs, fall under this category too.

    "First off, I don't think anybody should be drafted."

    We can agree on something, at least.

    "But, when it comes to men and women, men generaly have a physical advantage. You have to meet certain standards. Standards that the average man can or will more easily be able to meet."

    What does this have to do with I what I said before? If people want to join the military of their own free will, that's fine. Obviously they have to be capable of performing the tasks that they were contracted for. When it comes to the military draft, though, men don't have a choice; and, that's wrong.

    "I think most of the reason is religious. Do you believe they are doing that for fun? People think that it helps men. People do that to women for a different reason."

    Actually, female circumcision is done for the same reasons that male circumcision is done, which would be, yes, religious, as well as a belief that they are helping the women to be more 'hygienic'. The parallels are undeniable. That being said, it is all terrible no matter who it's done too.

    "Do you believe they are doing that for fun?"

    You might be surprised to the sadism among some, who circumcise their boys. This applies to only a small amount of the cases of circumcision; but, such cases do exist. If you're familiar with the case of Byron Prior, you'd know his mother had him circumcised at the age of 5 so she could more easily molest him.
  117. Posted by: bob on 5/14/2010 5:26 AM
    Gravatar
    "What does this have to do with I what I said before? If people want to join the military of their own free will, that's fine. Obviously they have to be capable of performing the tasks that they were contracted for. When it comes to the military draft, though, men don't have a choice; and, that's wrong."

    Is anybody being drafted at the moment? That was to explain why if anybody would be drafted it would be men.

    "Actually, female circumcision is done for the same reasons that male circumcision is done, which would be, yes, religious, as well as a belief that they are helping the women to be more 'hygienic'. The parallels are undeniable. That being said, it is all terrible no matter who it's done too."

    That may be the case in some cases, but think about what is done during female curcumcision. Like in Africa, women get cut in a way that there is no sexual feeling, and are sewn up until they're married off. To make sure they don't or don't have a reason to have sex. There are plenty of men circumcised in Africa, and all over the world, who are able to have and enjoy many women.

    "You might be surprised to the sadism among some, who circumcise their boys. This applies to only a small amount of the cases of circumcision; but, such cases do exist. If you're familiar with the case of Byron Prior, you'd know his mother had him circumcised at the age of 5 so she could more easily molest him."

    I know such cases exist, there are always acceptions. That doesn't mean I'm okay with circumcision though. Even though it doesn't take away all feeling, at least that's not the point, it does take away about 10%. It also impacts women, and not just for the obvious, it makes it easier to rape.

  118. Posted by: bob on 5/17/2010 4:31 PM
    Gravatar
    " If we ended feminism tomorrow then women would be worse off in some ways, since their unfair and sexist privileges may be rolled back a little. Kinda like how slave owners are worse off when slavery is ended."

    How is it kinda like that, when did women oppress men? Not that it isn't a problem, but aren't men more likely to be victim of violent crimes everywhere, and since like forever. Even though it's bad it's not discrimination, which people make a bigger deal about no matter what the topic is.
  119. Posted by: Joe on 5/30/2010 12:54 PM
    Gravatar
    @bob
    "Women have been denied educational opportunities for so long, what's wrong with female-only scholarships?"

    Because discrimination from previous generations does not pass down with genders like it does with race. Women aren't the product of women mating with women, they are the product of a father and a mother. Whatever educational benefits her father received over her mother to get to his economic status the next generation in that family gets those benefits. The only way it would make sense is if all parents got divorced after they had a kid and if it was a female it went to live with the mother in little woman town while the male went to live with the father in little man town.

  120. Posted by: bob on 6/1/2010 2:01 PM
    Gravatar
    "Because discrimination from previous generations does not pass down with genders like it does with race. Women aren't the product of women mating with women, they are the product of a father and a mother. Whatever educational benefits her father received over her mother to get to his economic status the next generation in that family gets those benefits. The only way it would make sense is if all parents got divorced after they had a kid and if it was a female it went to live with the mother in little woman town while the male went to live with the father in little man town."

    So a child who is biracial, having a father that is white and mother that is black, wouldn't have discrimination passed down like a child that comes from two black parents.

    What about black women, what educational benefits did their fathers receive?

    "Whatever educational benefits HER FATHER received over HER MOTHER to get to HIS economic status the next generation in that family gets those benefits."

    Whatever educational benefits HIS MOTHER received over HIS FATHER to get to HER economic status the next generation in that family gets those benefits.

  121. Posted by: bob on 6/12/2010 4:43 PM
    Gravatar
    @Joe

    "Because discrimination from previous generations does not pass down with genders"

    Does this mean that women today don't deserve anything for what women in the past have gone through?

    That may be true, based on atheist beliefs. But, what we have to understand is, women where not oppressed based on peoples atheist beliefs. Women where oppressed based on peoples religious beliefs. At least in Christianity, based on what one woman did all women where tied together for unjustified punishment. Now to make it right, all women are tied together for justified privilage. You know, to help even things out in places that were screming equality while being very unequal, it's fair and reasonable. And before anyone goes all, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord"--Romans 12:19, this isn't vengeance it's justice. Vengeance would be, taking every man out of the workplace, collage, any position of power, and having women take their place.

    @menareangrynow

    "On the contrary, women do better in school due to the female-only scholarships"

    How is that true? Tests have shown that women do better in school because of being smarter and not as easily distracted by attractive people. Scholarships get you in to schools, they don't get you straight A's. Also, unless they're handing out scholarships to random women on the street, you have to meet certain academic requirements to get a scholarship in the first place. On the contrary, women get scholarships due to doing better in school, not the other way around.
  122. Posted by: Nate on 6/13/2010 4:29 AM
    Gravatar
    "How is that true? Tests have shown that women do better in school because of being smarter

    Studies actually show men are smarter than women based on IQ.

    Here's an interesting quote for you:

    "There were twice as many men with IQ scores of 125, for example, a level said to correspond with people getting first-class degrees.

    At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/education/4183166.stm
  123. Posted by: bob on 6/15/2010 3:03 AM
    Gravatar
    "Studies actually show men are smarter than women based on IQ."

    Here's some of the comments:

    "Have these researchers looked at IQ levels below the average, at gender differentials among prison inmates? Let's have these included for balance, please."

    "The only thing IQ tests prove is how good you are at doing IQ tests."

    "Let's not ignore the fact that researchers believe about 20-25 IQ points are influenced by environmental factors. And the fact that test scores are adjusted for gender anyway as males tend to score higher on some factors and females on others. This is not a pure measure of intelligence, but a human-devised Western (and usually male and white) instrument."

    "I think that this study is probably true in a lot of cases, but this is because young girls change their ideals from learning. They start to have maternal thoughts of children and emotional attachment to partners. Therefore they neglect high learning for their natural development of nurturing. In general though I think women are equal to men, but in different roles."

    "To throw in another possible factor, remember also the competitive aspect of IQ tests: the average man is possibly more likely to treat a measurement of his mental capacity as a chance to prove himself; the average woman may not push herself as hard as she does not consider the result quite so important."

    "I don't think men are more intelligent than women on average. However, from personal experience I would say that the distribution of intelligence in men is more extreme, that is to say, there are more exceptionally clever men than women, but there are also more exceptionally stupid men than women."

    "Therefore it is no surprise that a test designed by men, and a study carried out by men, has found that men are 'more intelligent' than women."

    "I have the impression that society allows men to develop skills in a focussed way, with less time reserved for repetitive care tasks. IQ can be improved in this way. It is not set and fixed at birth. If men hone skills at the expense of good housekeeping or social responsibilities, perhaps they are granted the time to develop the extra five points where women spend more time looking after house/kids/husband/parents/friends."

    Actually, the tests I was talking about were ones where they looked at men's and women's brains, and said women were smarter.

    "At scores of 155, associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman."

    I realize that I've heard a lot more about male geniuses than female, but I was speaking on average. Also, I have to take into consideration that there are geniuses all over the world, and in some parts of the world females are deprived of education. So where there might be or would have been a female genius, the world may never know. What if Einstein was born in the female body, where would we be?

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)
Please add 2 and 6 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”